<?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>2010 (7) TMI 973 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172155</link>
    <description>Chlorotetracycline HCL was found not to have been captively used in the manufacture of animal food supplement, so the product classification and duty liability could not be altered on that basis. The record showed separate manufacturing lines for the supplement and for chlorotetracycline HCL, and the assessee&#039;s letter did not admit actual use of the chemical in the supplement line; it referred only to a theoretical quantity in the final product. As the Revenue did not rebut the manufacturing process or identify any stage at which the chemical was actually added, the finding that there was no captive use was sustained, with the issue decided in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2015 17:44:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=393159" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (7) TMI 973 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172155</link>
      <description>Chlorotetracycline HCL was found not to have been captively used in the manufacture of animal food supplement, so the product classification and duty liability could not be altered on that basis. The record showed separate manufacturing lines for the supplement and for chlorotetracycline HCL, and the assessee&#039;s letter did not admit actual use of the chemical in the supplement line; it referred only to a theoretical quantity in the final product. As the Revenue did not rebut the manufacturing process or identify any stage at which the chemical was actually added, the finding that there was no captive use was sustained, with the issue decided in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172155</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>