<?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>2004 (1) TMI 488 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110829</link>
    <description>Runners and risers arising during manufacture of non-alloy steel ingots and billets were not eligible for exemption under either Notification No. 50/97-C.E. or Notification No. 49/97-C.E. The goods were classified under Chapter Heading 7204.90 and fell outside Notification No. 50/97-C.E., which applied only to specified ingots and billets manufactured under the compounded levy regime. Notification No. 49/97-C.E. also did not apply because it covered waste and scrap arising from manufacture of ingots and billets on which duty was payable under Section 3A, whereas the relevant period pre-dated the introduction of that regime. The resulting position was denial of exemption under both notifications.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2012 17:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147845" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (1) TMI 488 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110829</link>
      <description>Runners and risers arising during manufacture of non-alloy steel ingots and billets were not eligible for exemption under either Notification No. 50/97-C.E. or Notification No. 49/97-C.E. The goods were classified under Chapter Heading 7204.90 and fell outside Notification No. 50/97-C.E., which applied only to specified ingots and billets manufactured under the compounded levy regime. Notification No. 49/97-C.E. also did not apply because it covered waste and scrap arising from manufacture of ingots and billets on which duty was payable under Section 3A, whereas the relevant period pre-dated the introduction of that regime. The resulting position was denial of exemption under both notifications.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110829</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>