<?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 (12) TMI 202 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86525</link>
    <description>An exemption notification, as amended, was read to cover bars and rods made from roughly shaped rolled steel pieces because the intermediate product was commercially distinct excisable goods and fell within the re-rollable material contemplated by the scheme. The later amendment confirming inclusion of ingots, bars, rods and other rollable or re-rollable material reinforced that construction, so the final products remained eligible for exemption. The proviso requiring duty to have already been paid on inputs was also treated as satisfied where the inputs were lawfully cleared under exemption, because duty legally payable was sufficient. The demand was therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 May 2019 12:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123592" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (12) TMI 202 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86525</link>
      <description>An exemption notification, as amended, was read to cover bars and rods made from roughly shaped rolled steel pieces because the intermediate product was commercially distinct excisable goods and fell within the re-rollable material contemplated by the scheme. The later amendment confirming inclusion of ingots, bars, rods and other rollable or re-rollable material reinforced that construction, so the final products remained eligible for exemption. The proviso requiring duty to have already been paid on inputs was also treated as satisfied where the inputs were lawfully cleared under exemption, because duty legally payable was sufficient. The demand was therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86525</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>