<?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 (11) TMI 389 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110201</link>
    <description>Duty was sustained where inputs allegedly sent for job work were not shown to have been lawfully removed or returned to the factory, and no documentary correlation established receipt back after processing. Clearance of bullet proof jackets to the head office for approval did not satisfy the exemption conditions for supply to the Armed Forces or Police Forces, so duty was upheld. For mixed-metal scrap, the absence of separate records for credit-availed and non-credit scrap required fresh determination, with the burden on the assessee to prove the nature of the removed material. High Aluminium Fire Clay Grog and Chrome Magnesite Grog were treated as dutiable under Heading 69.01, but valuation had to be recomputed on a cum-duty basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Apr 2012 11:50:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147217" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (11) TMI 389 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110201</link>
      <description>Duty was sustained where inputs allegedly sent for job work were not shown to have been lawfully removed or returned to the factory, and no documentary correlation established receipt back after processing. Clearance of bullet proof jackets to the head office for approval did not satisfy the exemption conditions for supply to the Armed Forces or Police Forces, so duty was upheld. For mixed-metal scrap, the absence of separate records for credit-availed and non-credit scrap required fresh determination, with the burden on the assessee to prove the nature of the removed material. High Aluminium Fire Clay Grog and Chrome Magnesite Grog were treated as dutiable under Heading 69.01, but valuation had to be recomputed on a cum-duty basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110201</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>