<?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>2009 (2) TMI 601 - CESTAT,  AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125889</link>
    <description>Job-work clearances were treated as eligible for exemption under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. where the goods were manufactured through a job-work arrangement and returned for use in the manufacture of the final product; the fact that the processed article acquired a distinct commercial identity did not by itself defeat the notification. Refund was also found not barred by unjust enrichment because the duty incidence had not been passed on to the buyer, and the record showed that the duty paid on the clearances was not reimbursed by the distilleries. On that basis, the relief granted to the assessee was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2012 12:39:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=162795" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (2) TMI 601 - CESTAT,  AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125889</link>
      <description>Job-work clearances were treated as eligible for exemption under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. where the goods were manufactured through a job-work arrangement and returned for use in the manufacture of the final product; the fact that the processed article acquired a distinct commercial identity did not by itself defeat the notification. Refund was also found not barred by unjust enrichment because the duty incidence had not been passed on to the buyer, and the record showed that the duty paid on the clearances was not reimbursed by the distilleries. On that basis, the relief granted to the assessee was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125889</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>