<?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 (7) TMI 382 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91659</link>
    <description>Brass scrap arising during manufacture of LPG cylinder valves was not treated as an input or partially processed input for removal under Rule 57F(2), because scrap generated in the course of manufacture does not retain the character of the original brass rods. The provision was read as permitting removal only of inputs as such, or after processes undertaken in their conversion into final products. The reasoning also noted that the revenue impact could vary where job-worker credit was available, so the issue could not be treated as uniformly revenue-neutral. In view of conflict with earlier decisions, the earlier contrary view was considered to require reconsideration by a larger bench.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:26:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=128721" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (7) TMI 382 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91659</link>
      <description>Brass scrap arising during manufacture of LPG cylinder valves was not treated as an input or partially processed input for removal under Rule 57F(2), because scrap generated in the course of manufacture does not retain the character of the original brass rods. The provision was read as permitting removal only of inputs as such, or after processes undertaken in their conversion into final products. The reasoning also noted that the revenue impact could vary where job-worker credit was available, so the issue could not be treated as uniformly revenue-neutral. In view of conflict with earlier decisions, the earlier contrary view was considered to require reconsideration by a larger bench.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91659</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>