<?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 (8) TMI 841 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236549</link>
    <description>Imported diodes were treated as semi-finished inputs because the record showed further processing was required before they became marketable and amounted to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. A departmental test report showing diode action was insufficient to prove that the goods were complete finished diodes capable of use without additional treatment, and it did not displace the earlier factual finding. On that basis, credit was rightly availed and the challenge to its denial failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Aug 2013 10:20:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=198956" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (8) TMI 841 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236549</link>
      <description>Imported diodes were treated as semi-finished inputs because the record showed further processing was required before they became marketable and amounted to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. A departmental test report showing diode action was insufficient to prove that the goods were complete finished diodes capable of use without additional treatment, and it did not displace the earlier factual finding. On that basis, credit was rightly availed and the challenge to its denial failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236549</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>