<?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>2011 (7) TMI 413 - Delhi High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207539</link>
    <description>Waste and scrap arising from breakage and repeated use of duty-paid glass bottles on which MODVAT credit had been taken remained dutiable under Rule 57F(5) because the rule deems such waste to be manufactured in the factory and permits removal only on duty payment unless a notified exception applies. The assessee&#039;s lack of manufacture of the bottles did not alter that result, as the bottles were treated as inputs for MODVAT purposes. A transfer of the bottles under a leasing arrangement was also treated as removal of inputs for home consumption under Rule 57F(1)(ii), because the legal effect of the transaction, not mere physical possession, governed duty liability. The duty demands were sustained on both issues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Sep 2012 16:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=181018" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (7) TMI 413 - Delhi High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207539</link>
      <description>Waste and scrap arising from breakage and repeated use of duty-paid glass bottles on which MODVAT credit had been taken remained dutiable under Rule 57F(5) because the rule deems such waste to be manufactured in the factory and permits removal only on duty payment unless a notified exception applies. The assessee&#039;s lack of manufacture of the bottles did not alter that result, as the bottles were treated as inputs for MODVAT purposes. A transfer of the bottles under a leasing arrangement was also treated as removal of inputs for home consumption under Rule 57F(1)(ii), because the legal effect of the transaction, not mere physical possession, governed duty liability. The duty demands were sustained on both issues.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207539</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>