<?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 (2) TMI 675 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98428</link>
    <description>Set-off of duty paid on cut tobacco was treated as admissible on the full quantity of cut tobacco issued for manufacture of cigarettes, not merely on the quantity ultimately found in cigarettes cleared on payment of duty. The Board&#039;s circular was read as allowing credit on duty-paid excisable goods issued for manufacture of finished goods, and the later destruction of some cigarettes as oily cigarettes did not change that position. A prior Board letter concerning inputs destroyed before being used in manufacture was distinguished because the goods here had already been issued for manufacture. The impugned order was set aside and the set-off claim was accepted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:04:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=135485" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (2) TMI 675 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98428</link>
      <description>Set-off of duty paid on cut tobacco was treated as admissible on the full quantity of cut tobacco issued for manufacture of cigarettes, not merely on the quantity ultimately found in cigarettes cleared on payment of duty. The Board&#039;s circular was read as allowing credit on duty-paid excisable goods issued for manufacture of finished goods, and the later destruction of some cigarettes as oily cigarettes did not change that position. A prior Board letter concerning inputs destroyed before being used in manufacture was distinguished because the goods here had already been issued for manufacture. The impugned order was set aside and the set-off claim was accepted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98428</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>