<?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 (7) TMI 368 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167571</link>
    <description>Returned platinum sheets from a secondary manufacturer qualified for captive use free of duty under Rule 56C(2) because the relevant inquiry was directed to the returned intermediate goods, not the finished bushings. The finished bushings were separately eligible for exemption under Notification No. 118/75-C.E. when assessed in the assessee&#039;s factory. Rule 56C and the notification were not mutually exclusive; the rule governed movement and captive use, while the notification granted substantive exemption, and both could operate together. The bushings were also treated as manufactured by the assessee&#039;s factory despite part of the remaking process being done by the secondary manufacturer, as the assessee performed the substantial remaining operations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jul 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Dec 2014 17:59:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=372071" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (7) TMI 368 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167571</link>
      <description>Returned platinum sheets from a secondary manufacturer qualified for captive use free of duty under Rule 56C(2) because the relevant inquiry was directed to the returned intermediate goods, not the finished bushings. The finished bushings were separately eligible for exemption under Notification No. 118/75-C.E. when assessed in the assessee&#039;s factory. Rule 56C and the notification were not mutually exclusive; the rule governed movement and captive use, while the notification granted substantive exemption, and both could operate together. The bushings were also treated as manufactured by the assessee&#039;s factory despite part of the remaking process being done by the secondary manufacturer, as the assessee performed the substantial remaining operations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jul 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167571</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>