<?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>2017 (2) TMI 766 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339066</link>
    <description>Captively consumed gun metal castings used in pump manufacture were treated as exempt under the SSI notification, because internal clearances of inputs used within the same factory were excluded from aggregate value under the notification&#039;s explanation. The exemption was also supported by the record showing that SSI benefit had been claimed for the relevant period, and the later notification extended exemption to the goods from 2 June 1998. As a result, no duty could be demanded on the castings for the relevant period, and the separate classification dispute was immaterial to duty liability. The refund-related issue was remanded for fresh decision in light of the exemption allowance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Aug 2017 14:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=458993" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 766 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339066</link>
      <description>Captively consumed gun metal castings used in pump manufacture were treated as exempt under the SSI notification, because internal clearances of inputs used within the same factory were excluded from aggregate value under the notification&#039;s explanation. The exemption was also supported by the record showing that SSI benefit had been claimed for the relevant period, and the later notification extended exemption to the goods from 2 June 1998. As a result, no duty could be demanded on the castings for the relevant period, and the separate classification dispute was immaterial to duty liability. The refund-related issue was remanded for fresh decision in light of the exemption allowance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339066</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>