<?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>2016 (12) TMI 142 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335497</link>
    <description>Grey fabrics that remained grey after scouring were held not to become processed fabrics for the purpose of excluding deemed credit under Notification No. 29/96-C.E., because scouring was treated as a cleansing treatment and not further processing. The assessee therefore satisfied the notification conditions and was entitled to deemed credit. On valuation, where duty had already been discharged on the processed fabrics on the declared market price, supported by joint declarations and price lists, alleged additional processing charges did not attract separate central excise duty. The impugned order was set aside, the appeals were allowed, and consequential penalties were deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Jan 2018 13:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=450394" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 142 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335497</link>
      <description>Grey fabrics that remained grey after scouring were held not to become processed fabrics for the purpose of excluding deemed credit under Notification No. 29/96-C.E., because scouring was treated as a cleansing treatment and not further processing. The assessee therefore satisfied the notification conditions and was entitled to deemed credit. On valuation, where duty had already been discharged on the processed fabrics on the declared market price, supported by joint declarations and price lists, alleged additional processing charges did not attract separate central excise duty. The impugned order was set aside, the appeals were allowed, and consequential penalties were deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335497</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>