<?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>2003 (3) TMI 511 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108443</link>
    <description>Notification No. 214/86-C.E. applies to goods manufactured on job work basis where the principal manufacturer furnishes the prescribed undertaking to the jurisdictional authority and discharges duty on the final products. The record showed that intimation was given to the competent excise authority, with a copy to the authority over the job worker&#039;s factory, and the job worker&#039;s classification declaration reflected manufacture under the notification. As the department did not dispute that duty had been paid by the principal manufacturer, the notification conditions were treated as satisfied and the exemption was available to the job worker. On that basis, the duty demand and penalty could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Mar 2012 15:26:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145460" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (3) TMI 511 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108443</link>
      <description>Notification No. 214/86-C.E. applies to goods manufactured on job work basis where the principal manufacturer furnishes the prescribed undertaking to the jurisdictional authority and discharges duty on the final products. The record showed that intimation was given to the competent excise authority, with a copy to the authority over the job worker&#039;s factory, and the job worker&#039;s classification declaration reflected manufacture under the notification. As the department did not dispute that duty had been paid by the principal manufacturer, the notification conditions were treated as satisfied and the exemption was available to the job worker. On that basis, the duty demand and penalty could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108443</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>