<?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 (7) TMI 436 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112334</link>
    <description>M.S. round bars manufactured from re-rollable cut pieces of bars, plates, angles and similar materials were treated as eligible inputs for exemption under Notification No. 208/83-C.E. because the materials were not merely waste and scrap for recovery of metal, but re-rollable inputs used in manufacture. Trade notices and Board circulars were relied on to treat such re-rollable or industrial scrap used otherwise than for melting as classifiable as inputs rather than waste and scrap. The extended limitation for duty demand was unavailable because Section 11A(1) required fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression, or intent to evade duty, and no mala fide was found.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2012 16:31:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=149350" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (7) TMI 436 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112334</link>
      <description>M.S. round bars manufactured from re-rollable cut pieces of bars, plates, angles and similar materials were treated as eligible inputs for exemption under Notification No. 208/83-C.E. because the materials were not merely waste and scrap for recovery of metal, but re-rollable inputs used in manufacture. Trade notices and Board circulars were relied on to treat such re-rollable or industrial scrap used otherwise than for melting as classifiable as inputs rather than waste and scrap. The extended limitation for duty demand was unavailable because Section 11A(1) required fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression, or intent to evade duty, and no mala fide was found.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112334</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>