<?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>1999 (7) TMI 313 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92995</link>
    <description>Exemption under Notification No. 179/77 was available where duty-paid goods received from an independent job worker were further processed at the assessee&#039;s premises without the aid of power. The relevant manufacture was the creation of a new product, Precision Bonding Machine, and the decisive factor was the absence of power in the assessee&#039;s own manufacturing process. The fact that the job worker had earlier used electricity was not material because that activity had already ended, the goods had left the job worker&#039;s premises on payment of duty, and the job worker was treated as an independent manufacturer. The assessee was therefore held entitled to the exemption, and the Revenue&#039;s appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Nov 2011 15:57:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130056" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (7) TMI 313 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92995</link>
      <description>Exemption under Notification No. 179/77 was available where duty-paid goods received from an independent job worker were further processed at the assessee&#039;s premises without the aid of power. The relevant manufacture was the creation of a new product, Precision Bonding Machine, and the decisive factor was the absence of power in the assessee&#039;s own manufacturing process. The fact that the job worker had earlier used electricity was not material because that activity had already ended, the goods had left the job worker&#039;s premises on payment of duty, and the job worker was treated as an independent manufacturer. The assessee was therefore held entitled to the exemption, and the Revenue&#039;s appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92995</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>