<?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 (1) TMI 272 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91587</link>
    <description>Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 permits removal of inputs as such, or after partial processing, only for operations necessary for manufacture of the final product, with return for further use in production. On the stated facts, Di-Ethyl-Phthalate was itself the assessee&#039;s final product, while denatured ethyl alcohol was the input received back from the other factory, so the arrangement did not fit the statutory scheme. Payment of duty on clearance of Di-Ethyl-Phthalate further indicated that the rule could not be invoked for this transaction. Permission was therefore unavailable, and the revenue view was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2011 13:34:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=128649" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (1) TMI 272 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91587</link>
      <description>Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 permits removal of inputs as such, or after partial processing, only for operations necessary for manufacture of the final product, with return for further use in production. On the stated facts, Di-Ethyl-Phthalate was itself the assessee&#039;s final product, while denatured ethyl alcohol was the input received back from the other factory, so the arrangement did not fit the statutory scheme. Payment of duty on clearance of Di-Ethyl-Phthalate further indicated that the rule could not be invoked for this transaction. Permission was therefore unavailable, and the revenue view was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91587</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>