<?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>2002 (11) TMI 642 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108356</link>
    <description>Dyed yarn cleared under a job-work arrangement was treated as eligible for exemption under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. because the substantive conditions were satisfied, and Rules 57J/57AC did not prevent the appellant from acting both as supplier of inputs and as job-worker. The arrangement involved grey textured yarn being cleared on duty payment, received back under delivery challans from the principal manufacturer, and used in the appellant&#039;s factory to manufacture dyed yarn for clearance to that principal manufacturer. The earlier Larger Bench ruling in Maruti Udyog was relied on as supportive. The duty demand and penalty were therefore set aside, and the transaction was also found to be revenue neutral.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:25:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145373" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (11) TMI 642 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108356</link>
      <description>Dyed yarn cleared under a job-work arrangement was treated as eligible for exemption under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. because the substantive conditions were satisfied, and Rules 57J/57AC did not prevent the appellant from acting both as supplier of inputs and as job-worker. The arrangement involved grey textured yarn being cleared on duty payment, received back under delivery challans from the principal manufacturer, and used in the appellant&#039;s factory to manufacture dyed yarn for clearance to that principal manufacturer. The earlier Larger Bench ruling in Maruti Udyog was relied on as supportive. The duty demand and penalty were therefore set aside, and the transaction was also found to be revenue neutral.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108356</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>