<?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>2001 (12) TMI 233 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98121</link>
    <description>Hard waste generated during the doubling or multi-folding of single ply yarn was treated as liable to excise duty because the yarn had already become an excisable commodity when it first emerged on the spindle in single ply form. The duty collection was regarded as deferred rather than avoided, and no material distinction was accepted between clearance at the single ply stage and clearance after further processing for the purpose of taxing the resulting waste. On that reasoning, duty on the hard waste was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 12:33:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=135178" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (12) TMI 233 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98121</link>
      <description>Hard waste generated during the doubling or multi-folding of single ply yarn was treated as liable to excise duty because the yarn had already become an excisable commodity when it first emerged on the spindle in single ply form. The duty collection was regarded as deferred rather than avoided, and no material distinction was accepted between clearance at the single ply stage and clearance after further processing for the purpose of taxing the resulting waste. On that reasoning, duty on the hard waste was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98121</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>