<?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 (11) TMI 496 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116080</link>
    <description>Rubber gloves used by factory workers in the manufacture of chewing gum and confectionery were treated as having no real nexus with the manufacturing process for purposes of Modvat credit under Rule 57A. The stated reasoning was that the goods did not participate in, or relate to, the manufacture of the final product, and the process was neither sensitive nor hazardous so as to require hand protection as a commercial necessity. Authorities cited by the assessee were distinguished on the basis that they involved hazardous or sensitive processes. Credit was therefore held inadmissible and the disallowance and penalty were restored in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Jun 2012 10:58:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153078" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (11) TMI 496 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116080</link>
      <description>Rubber gloves used by factory workers in the manufacture of chewing gum and confectionery were treated as having no real nexus with the manufacturing process for purposes of Modvat credit under Rule 57A. The stated reasoning was that the goods did not participate in, or relate to, the manufacture of the final product, and the process was neither sensitive nor hazardous so as to require hand protection as a commercial necessity. Authorities cited by the assessee were distinguished on the basis that they involved hazardous or sensitive processes. Credit was therefore held inadmissible and the disallowance and penalty were restored in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116080</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>