<?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>1997 (1) TMI 210 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86355</link>
    <description>RG 1 is a register meant for excisable goods, so a direction requiring its maintenance for goods held non-excisable was inconsistent with the Central Excise Rules. Separate accounts showing generation, stock, and clearance of waste, scrap, and cut pieces were sufficient for departmental verification, and the insistence on RG 1 compliance for such goods was deleted in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Aug 2011 12:41:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123422" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (1) TMI 210 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86355</link>
      <description>RG 1 is a register meant for excisable goods, so a direction requiring its maintenance for goods held non-excisable was inconsistent with the Central Excise Rules. Separate accounts showing generation, stock, and clearance of waste, scrap, and cut pieces were sufficient for departmental verification, and the insistence on RG 1 compliance for such goods was deleted in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86355</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>