<?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 (4) TMI 473 - CESTAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=227241</link>
    <description>Manufacture of Aluminium Sulphate was held to qualify as job work under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. even though the assessee procured one raw material from the market, because the notification did not require every input to be supplied by the principal manufacturer. The principal manufacturer had supplied Alumina Hydrate, which was processed with Sulphuric Acid into the final product, and no breach of the notification conditions was shown. The Tribunal also noted that denial of exemption would have been revenue neutral because duty would pass to the principal manufacturer with corresponding Cenvat credit. The exemption was upheld and the demand and penalty were unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 07:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=195626" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (4) TMI 473 - CESTAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=227241</link>
      <description>Manufacture of Aluminium Sulphate was held to qualify as job work under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. even though the assessee procured one raw material from the market, because the notification did not require every input to be supplied by the principal manufacturer. The principal manufacturer had supplied Alumina Hydrate, which was processed with Sulphuric Acid into the final product, and no breach of the notification conditions was shown. The Tribunal also noted that denial of exemption would have been revenue neutral because duty would pass to the principal manufacturer with corresponding Cenvat credit. The exemption was upheld and the demand and penalty were unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=227241</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>