<?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>1984 (2) TMI 321 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166882</link>
    <description>Vegetable non-essential oil hardened by hydrogenation beyond the stage fit for human consumption remained classifiable under Item 12, because Item 13 covered only oil or fat hardened for human consumption. The intermediate hardening did not create a new excisable commodity for tariff purposes, so the product continued to fall within the broader item. Notification No. 181/71-C.E. did not withdraw the exemption under Notification No. 33/63-C.E. on the facts found, because the oil was moved under Chapter X procedure and used in soap manufacture without attracting the disabling condition relied on by the department. The duty demand therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2014 11:55:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=368535" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (2) TMI 321 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166882</link>
      <description>Vegetable non-essential oil hardened by hydrogenation beyond the stage fit for human consumption remained classifiable under Item 12, because Item 13 covered only oil or fat hardened for human consumption. The intermediate hardening did not create a new excisable commodity for tariff purposes, so the product continued to fall within the broader item. Notification No. 181/71-C.E. did not withdraw the exemption under Notification No. 33/63-C.E. on the facts found, because the oil was moved under Chapter X procedure and used in soap manufacture without attracting the disabling condition relied on by the department. The duty demand therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166882</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>