<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1996 (10) TMI 199 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85950</link>
    <description>Bars and rods made from purchased fresh unused rerollable scrap and old and used rerollable scrap did not qualify for exemption under Notification No. 208/83-C.E. because the inputs were not shown, by invoices, challans or other reliable records, to be defective ingots, blocks, lumps or similar steel forms covered by the specified tariff sub-items. The Tribunal further held that market scrap could not be treated as duty-paid manufactured input merely by assumption, and deemed credit was unavailable where there was no proof that the inputs had suffered duty. The denial of exemption and deemed credit was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Aug 2011 12:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123017" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (10) TMI 199 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85950</link>
      <description>Bars and rods made from purchased fresh unused rerollable scrap and old and used rerollable scrap did not qualify for exemption under Notification No. 208/83-C.E. because the inputs were not shown, by invoices, challans or other reliable records, to be defective ingots, blocks, lumps or similar steel forms covered by the specified tariff sub-items. The Tribunal further held that market scrap could not be treated as duty-paid manufactured input merely by assumption, and deemed credit was unavailable where there was no proof that the inputs had suffered duty. The denial of exemption and deemed credit was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85950</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>