<?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 (9) TMI 902 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109129</link>
    <description>Copper waste and scrap cleared under exemption or nil-duty gate passes may be treated as duty-paid for exemption purposes when the notification requires inputs on which excise duty has already been paid, so the objection that such scrap was non-duty-paid does not survive. In a genuine job-work arrangement, duty on copper bars and rods remains payable by the person who actually manufactures the excisable goods, unless the job worker is shown to be a mere dummy acting under the principal&#039;s supervision, direction, and control. On the stated facts, the demand could not be fastened on the appellant and would lie, if at all, against the job worker.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Apr 2012 10:35:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146146" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (9) TMI 902 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109129</link>
      <description>Copper waste and scrap cleared under exemption or nil-duty gate passes may be treated as duty-paid for exemption purposes when the notification requires inputs on which excise duty has already been paid, so the objection that such scrap was non-duty-paid does not survive. In a genuine job-work arrangement, duty on copper bars and rods remains payable by the person who actually manufactures the excisable goods, unless the job worker is shown to be a mere dummy acting under the principal&#039;s supervision, direction, and control. On the stated facts, the demand could not be fastened on the appellant and would lie, if at all, against the job worker.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109129</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>