<?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>1998 (9) TMI 220 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89594</link>
    <description>A central excise demand was treated as time-barred where the show cause notice was issued beyond the normal six-month period under Section 11A and the extended period was neither invoked nor supported by pleaded facts. On Modvat credit, ready-made tin containers used for packing biscuits were held to fall within the wide meaning of &quot;packaging materials&quot; under Rule 57A. Because packaging materials were included in the definition of &quot;input&quot; only subject to specified exclusions, the ready-made containers used by the assessee were excluded from input treatment and credit was not admissible on that basis. The appeal succeeded on limitation, while the credit claim failed on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Sep 2011 12:54:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=126656" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (9) TMI 220 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89594</link>
      <description>A central excise demand was treated as time-barred where the show cause notice was issued beyond the normal six-month period under Section 11A and the extended period was neither invoked nor supported by pleaded facts. On Modvat credit, ready-made tin containers used for packing biscuits were held to fall within the wide meaning of &quot;packaging materials&quot; under Rule 57A. Because packaging materials were included in the definition of &quot;input&quot; only subject to specified exclusions, the ready-made containers used by the assessee were excluded from input treatment and credit was not admissible on that basis. The appeal succeeded on limitation, while the credit claim failed on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89594</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>