<?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>1985 (4) TMI 300 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167430</link>
    <description>For excise set-off under the relevant exemption notification, a material need not become part of paper bodily; it qualifies if it is consumed and utilised in the manufacturing process and directly contributes to the production or quality of paper and paperboard. On that basis, lime, salt cake and sulphamic acid were treated as inputs because they were used in intermediate manufacturing stages and affected fibre or paper quality. Alum used in treating process water was also treated as an input where that water was used in paper manufacture. Alum used only in the clarifloculator for effluent treatment before discharge did not qualify, because it was not part of the manufacturing process.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2014 14:47:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=371531" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (4) TMI 300 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167430</link>
      <description>For excise set-off under the relevant exemption notification, a material need not become part of paper bodily; it qualifies if it is consumed and utilised in the manufacturing process and directly contributes to the production or quality of paper and paperboard. On that basis, lime, salt cake and sulphamic acid were treated as inputs because they were used in intermediate manufacturing stages and affected fibre or paper quality. Alum used in treating process water was also treated as an input where that water was used in paper manufacture. Alum used only in the clarifloculator for effluent treatment before discharge did not qualify, because it was not part of the manufacturing process.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167430</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>