<?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>2004 (4) TMI 569 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165072</link>
    <description>Duty-paid copper concentrate used wholly to manufacture dutiable copper anodes could not be treated as a common input for sulphuric and phosphoric acid manufactured later from sulphur-di-oxide and other chemicals. The scheme governing exempted final products applied to common inputs used in both dutiable and exempted final products, whereas this process involved a dutiable final product and by-products or intermediate products. Rule 57D continued to protect credit where part of the input was contained in a by-product arising during manufacture, and that protection was not displaced by Rule 57AD or Rule 6. Accordingly, proportionate reversal or an 8% demand was not sustainable, and the demand, interest and penalty were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2024 12:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=355242" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (4) TMI 569 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165072</link>
      <description>Duty-paid copper concentrate used wholly to manufacture dutiable copper anodes could not be treated as a common input for sulphuric and phosphoric acid manufactured later from sulphur-di-oxide and other chemicals. The scheme governing exempted final products applied to common inputs used in both dutiable and exempted final products, whereas this process involved a dutiable final product and by-products or intermediate products. Rule 57D continued to protect credit where part of the input was contained in a by-product arising during manufacture, and that protection was not displaced by Rule 57AD or Rule 6. Accordingly, proportionate reversal or an 8% demand was not sustainable, and the demand, interest and penalty were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165072</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>