<?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 (2) TMI 313 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89757</link>
    <description>Credit on scrap used to manufacture billets and ingots, later captively consumed in making rolled steel products, was treated as admissible under the Modvat scheme because the process was an integrated manufacture and the declaration covered the relevant tariff descriptions. The objection that scrap was not an input for the final products and was not properly declared was rejected on the facts. The Tribunal also held that billets and ingots were intermediate products, so the exemption or non-duty status of those goods did not trigger the Rule 57C bar; Rule 57D(2) applied instead. On that basis, no referable question of law was found and the reference application was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2011 15:26:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=126819" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (2) TMI 313 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89757</link>
      <description>Credit on scrap used to manufacture billets and ingots, later captively consumed in making rolled steel products, was treated as admissible under the Modvat scheme because the process was an integrated manufacture and the declaration covered the relevant tariff descriptions. The objection that scrap was not an input for the final products and was not properly declared was rejected on the facts. The Tribunal also held that billets and ingots were intermediate products, so the exemption or non-duty status of those goods did not trigger the Rule 57C bar; Rule 57D(2) applied instead. On that basis, no referable question of law was found and the reference application was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89757</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>