<?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>1983 (2) TMI 314 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166090</link>
    <description>Processed vegetable non-essential oil used in making hardened technical oil and ultimately soap qualified for exemption under Notification No. 33/63-Central Excise, because the intermediate hardening stage did not defeat relief where the goods were ultimately used in manufacture of the notified final product and movement under Chapter X procedure was accepted. The majority treated the department&#039;s objection as making the notification unworkable for soap manufacture and held that duty was not payable on the processed oil; refund followed if duty had been paid. A dissenting view considered the intermediate excisable stage decisive and would have denied the exemption.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Aug 2014 15:12:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=363730" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (2) TMI 314 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166090</link>
      <description>Processed vegetable non-essential oil used in making hardened technical oil and ultimately soap qualified for exemption under Notification No. 33/63-Central Excise, because the intermediate hardening stage did not defeat relief where the goods were ultimately used in manufacture of the notified final product and movement under Chapter X procedure was accepted. The majority treated the department&#039;s objection as making the notification unworkable for soap manufacture and held that duty was not payable on the processed oil; refund followed if duty had been paid. A dissenting view considered the intermediate excisable stage decisive and would have denied the exemption.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166090</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>