<?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 168 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87452</link>
    <description>In a job-work manufacturing arrangement, excise duty liability attaches to the processor as the manufacturer under section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, not to the merchant manufacturer. Where this legal position applies, proceedings seeking to fasten duty on the merchant manufacturer cannot be sustained, and the corresponding penalty also falls.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2011 11:31:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124519" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (11) TMI 168 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87452</link>
      <description>In a job-work manufacturing arrangement, excise duty liability attaches to the processor as the manufacturer under section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, not to the merchant manufacturer. Where this legal position applies, proceedings seeking to fasten duty on the merchant manufacturer cannot be sustained, and the corresponding penalty also falls.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87452</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>