<?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>1997 (9) TMI 517 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104360</link>
    <description>Perfumed sandalwood oil returned by job workers was treated as an intermediate product used in manufacturing pan masala, so Modvat credit on the duty-paid sandalwood oil was available. The commentary applies the principle that a product may be a final product for one manufacturer and an intermediate product for another, and that credit is not denied merely because the intermediate product is separately excisable or exempt. On limitation, filing of the Modvat declaration, maintenance of statutory records, prior permission for job-work removal, and unobjected RT 12 returns showed no suppression or intent to evade duty, so the extended period was unavailable and the demand was time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2012 17:40:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141399" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (9) TMI 517 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104360</link>
      <description>Perfumed sandalwood oil returned by job workers was treated as an intermediate product used in manufacturing pan masala, so Modvat credit on the duty-paid sandalwood oil was available. The commentary applies the principle that a product may be a final product for one manufacturer and an intermediate product for another, and that credit is not denied merely because the intermediate product is separately excisable or exempt. On limitation, filing of the Modvat declaration, maintenance of statutory records, prior permission for job-work removal, and unobjected RT 12 returns showed no suppression or intent to evade duty, so the extended period was unavailable and the demand was time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104360</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>