<?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 (6) TMI 256 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86115</link>
    <description>Jute hessian and sacking bags made from duty-paid hessian and sacking fabrics remained liable to jute manufactures cess because the levy under the Jute Manufactures Cess Act, 1983 applies to each finished jute article specified in the Schedule or covered by the residuary entry when produced in India. Rule 3 also fastens cess on finished jute manufactures removed for sale. As the bags were distinct finished goods removed for sale, prior cess payment on the input fabrics in another factory did not bar a fresh levy on the bags. The lower appellate authority&#039;s contrary view was incorrect, and the issue was decided in favour of Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jun 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Aug 2011 13:01:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123182" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (6) TMI 256 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86115</link>
      <description>Jute hessian and sacking bags made from duty-paid hessian and sacking fabrics remained liable to jute manufactures cess because the levy under the Jute Manufactures Cess Act, 1983 applies to each finished jute article specified in the Schedule or covered by the residuary entry when produced in India. Rule 3 also fastens cess on finished jute manufactures removed for sale. As the bags were distinct finished goods removed for sale, prior cess payment on the input fabrics in another factory did not bar a fresh levy on the bags. The lower appellate authority&#039;s contrary view was incorrect, and the issue was decided in favour of Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jun 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86115</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>