<?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 (3) TMI 199 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86615</link>
    <description>Untrimmed copper and copper-alloy sheets and circles described under the tariff were treated as excisable and marketable goods because a tariff entry creates a rebuttable presumption of excisability, which the challengers did not displace with evidence. Notification No. 214/86-C.E. was held to operate according to its plain terms in job-work arrangements by exempting the job worker and shifting duty responsibility to the principal supplier, subject to compliance with the notification&#039;s conditions. The SSI exemption position also required period-wise examination, because differing clearances and applicable notifications could not be assessed on a blanket basis. The matter therefore called for fresh, fact-specific reconsideration under the relevant notifications.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:40:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123682" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (3) TMI 199 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86615</link>
      <description>Untrimmed copper and copper-alloy sheets and circles described under the tariff were treated as excisable and marketable goods because a tariff entry creates a rebuttable presumption of excisability, which the challengers did not displace with evidence. Notification No. 214/86-C.E. was held to operate according to its plain terms in job-work arrangements by exempting the job worker and shifting duty responsibility to the principal supplier, subject to compliance with the notification&#039;s conditions. The SSI exemption position also required period-wise examination, because differing clearances and applicable notifications could not be assessed on a blanket basis. The matter therefore called for fresh, fact-specific reconsideration under the relevant notifications.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86615</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>