<?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>2020 (1) TMI 194 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390581</link>
    <description>An arrangement with a job worker will not avoid excise duty where the substance shows the appellant supplying raw materials and retaining the role of principal, with the job worker acting only as processor or agent. On the facts recorded, the tribunal&#039;s findings were not shown to be perverse, and no substantial question of law arose for interference. The result was that the excise duty liability remained on the appellant and the challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2020 06:56:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=599503" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (1) TMI 194 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390581</link>
      <description>An arrangement with a job worker will not avoid excise duty where the substance shows the appellant supplying raw materials and retaining the role of principal, with the job worker acting only as processor or agent. On the facts recorded, the tribunal&#039;s findings were not shown to be perverse, and no substantial question of law arose for interference. The result was that the excise duty liability remained on the appellant and the challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390581</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>