<?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 (4) TMI 331 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90640</link>
    <description>Storage of molasses within the factory premises in a kutcha pit, caused by lack of tank capacity and regulated lifting by the State Excise Department, did not amount to removal or consumption as such under the Explanation to Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules. Because the facts did not show storage outside the factory or removal for use in the manufacture of another product, the departmental demand for duty was not sustainable and the assessee&#039;s relief was maintained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Oct 2011 15:04:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127702" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (4) TMI 331 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90640</link>
      <description>Storage of molasses within the factory premises in a kutcha pit, caused by lack of tank capacity and regulated lifting by the State Excise Department, did not amount to removal or consumption as such under the Explanation to Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules. Because the facts did not show storage outside the factory or removal for use in the manufacture of another product, the departmental demand for duty was not sustainable and the assessee&#039;s relief was maintained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90640</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>