<?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>2000 (7) TMI 303 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93729</link>
    <description>Inserts and tips used captively in manufacturing hand tools qualify as intermediate products for Modvat purposes. Rule 57C applies when the final product is exempt, while Rule 57D(2) governs exemption of intermediate products. Their treatment depends on their use in the manufacturing process: goods consumed within the factory in producing finished goods retain their intermediate-product character even where most identical goods are separately cleared on payment of duty. Separate duty-paid clearances therefore do not alter the status of the quantity captively consumed. The cited precedent involved different facts and did not affect this position; no referable question of law arose.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Nov 2011 15:05:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130789" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (7) TMI 303 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93729</link>
      <description>Inserts and tips used captively in manufacturing hand tools qualify as intermediate products for Modvat purposes. Rule 57C applies when the final product is exempt, while Rule 57D(2) governs exemption of intermediate products. Their treatment depends on their use in the manufacturing process: goods consumed within the factory in producing finished goods retain their intermediate-product character even where most identical goods are separately cleared on payment of duty. Separate duty-paid clearances therefore do not alter the status of the quantity captively consumed. The cited precedent involved different facts and did not affect this position; no referable question of law arose.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93729</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>