<?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>1997 (10) TMI 272 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92006</link>
    <description>Rule 57F(1) deems inputs cleared as such, with permission, to be treated as if manufactured in the receiving factory, so the duty payable on removal is the appropriate excise duty applicable at that time, not merely reversal of the credit originally taken under Rule 57A, subject only to the minimum floor of that credit. The narrower view was rejected. The penalty was also set aside for want of an independent basis to sustain it.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 22 Oct 2011 14:40:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=129067" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (10) TMI 272 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92006</link>
      <description>Rule 57F(1) deems inputs cleared as such, with permission, to be treated as if manufactured in the receiving factory, so the duty payable on removal is the appropriate excise duty applicable at that time, not merely reversal of the credit originally taken under Rule 57A, subject only to the minimum floor of that credit. The narrower view was rejected. The penalty was also set aside for want of an independent basis to sustain it.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92006</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>