<?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 (11) TMI 149 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87327</link>
    <description>An exemption notification was construed strictly according to its specified raw materials: aluminium castings made only from aluminium ingots did not qualify merely because the ingots had themselves been produced from scrap under an earlier exemption, as ingots were not one of the materials covered and could not be equated with virgin aluminium in crude form on the facts stated. The appellate reasoning that the castings were made from ingots rather than scrap was held to remain within the scope of the show cause notice, so the objection of going beyond the notice was rejected. The text also records that, because an earlier Tribunal view differed, the matter was directed for reference to a Larger Bench.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Sep 2011 12:39:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124394" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (11) TMI 149 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87327</link>
      <description>An exemption notification was construed strictly according to its specified raw materials: aluminium castings made only from aluminium ingots did not qualify merely because the ingots had themselves been produced from scrap under an earlier exemption, as ingots were not one of the materials covered and could not be equated with virgin aluminium in crude form on the facts stated. The appellate reasoning that the castings were made from ingots rather than scrap was held to remain within the scope of the show cause notice, so the objection of going beyond the notice was rejected. The text also records that, because an earlier Tribunal view differed, the matter was directed for reference to a Larger Bench.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87327</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>