<?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>2007 (3) TMI 165 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2649</link>
    <description>Epoxy resin and agar used in polishing granite slabs were treated as consumables rather than raw materials because they were applied only to fill fissures, pores and cracks, did not remain in the finished granite, and were eliminated during polishing. The applicable test was whether the ingredient enters the end-product or is instead used in the manufacturing process as part of the apparatus; materials that do not survive in the finished product fall on the consumables side of that line. Board circulars, Development Commissioner clarifications, and earlier decisions on similar processing materials supported exemption eligibility, so the denial of exemption was set aside and the revenue appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=42006" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (3) TMI 165 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2649</link>
      <description>Epoxy resin and agar used in polishing granite slabs were treated as consumables rather than raw materials because they were applied only to fill fissures, pores and cracks, did not remain in the finished granite, and were eliminated during polishing. The applicable test was whether the ingredient enters the end-product or is instead used in the manufacturing process as part of the apparatus; materials that do not survive in the finished product fall on the consumables side of that line. Board circulars, Development Commissioner clarifications, and earlier decisions on similar processing materials supported exemption eligibility, so the denial of exemption was set aside and the revenue appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2649</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>