<?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 (11) TMI 705 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99690</link>
    <description>Re-recording blank video cassettes from already recorded cassettes was treated as manufacture under the relevant excise provision, so the activity attracted excise consequences. The Tribunal also held that the exemption in Notification No. 102/82 applied only to recorded articles not meant for sale; because the re-recorded cassettes were used for trade purposes, the exemption was unavailable. On that basis, the order under challenge was set aside and Revenue succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Jan 2012 12:59:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136742" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (11) TMI 705 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99690</link>
      <description>Re-recording blank video cassettes from already recorded cassettes was treated as manufacture under the relevant excise provision, so the activity attracted excise consequences. The Tribunal also held that the exemption in Notification No. 102/82 applied only to recorded articles not meant for sale; because the re-recorded cassettes were used for trade purposes, the exemption was unavailable. On that basis, the order under challenge was set aside and Revenue succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99690</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>