<?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 (2) TMI 598 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113360</link>
    <description>Goods returned to the supplier as line rejects after issue for manufacture were treated as rejected inputs, not as inputs cleared as such. On that factual basis, Rule 57D of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 applied, and no duty liability or credit reversal arose. The Department failed to prove that the goods were removed from the factory as such, so Rule 57F(3) was not attracted. The Revenue&#039;s challenge therefore failed, and the relief granted to the assessee was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 May 2012 18:53:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150366" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (2) TMI 598 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113360</link>
      <description>Goods returned to the supplier as line rejects after issue for manufacture were treated as rejected inputs, not as inputs cleared as such. On that factual basis, Rule 57D of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 applied, and no duty liability or credit reversal arose. The Department failed to prove that the goods were removed from the factory as such, so Rule 57F(3) was not attracted. The Revenue&#039;s challenge therefore failed, and the relief granted to the assessee was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113360</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>