<?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>2013 (2) TMI 82 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220672</link>
    <description>Broken, damaged and wastage biscuits arising incidentally during manufacture were treated as refuse or waste, not deliberately manufactured excisable goods, and the later amendment to the definition of excisable goods under Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not apply to the relevant period; duty was therefore not payable. Cenvat credit on input packing materials could not be denied where the materials were shown to have been used in biscuit manufacture and damaged in the process, and the Department relied only on a variance report without proving that the inputs were not used in or in relation to manufacture. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed with consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=194034" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (2) TMI 82 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220672</link>
      <description>Broken, damaged and wastage biscuits arising incidentally during manufacture were treated as refuse or waste, not deliberately manufactured excisable goods, and the later amendment to the definition of excisable goods under Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not apply to the relevant period; duty was therefore not payable. Cenvat credit on input packing materials could not be denied where the materials were shown to have been used in biscuit manufacture and damaged in the process, and the Department relied only on a variance report without proving that the inputs were not used in or in relation to manufacture. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed with consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220672</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>