<?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>2008 (1) TMI 327 - CESTAT Bangalore</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30963</link>
    <description>Epoxy resin and ager used in polishing granite slabs were treated as consumables, not ineligible raw materials, because they were applied only during manufacture for polishing and filling fissures or minute pores and did not remain in the finished slabs. Applying earlier Tribunal decisions, the operative test was whether the article goes into the end-product in a manner that its absence would make the product impossible; items used merely in the manufacturing process fall outside raw material treatment. Board circulars and communications from Development Commissioners also supported this classification. On that basis, exemption under Notification No. 8/97-C.E. could not be denied, and the assessee&#039;s entitlement was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=69616" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (1) TMI 327 - CESTAT Bangalore</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30963</link>
      <description>Epoxy resin and ager used in polishing granite slabs were treated as consumables, not ineligible raw materials, because they were applied only during manufacture for polishing and filling fissures or minute pores and did not remain in the finished slabs. Applying earlier Tribunal decisions, the operative test was whether the article goes into the end-product in a manner that its absence would make the product impossible; items used merely in the manufacturing process fall outside raw material treatment. Board circulars and communications from Development Commissioners also supported this classification. On that basis, exemption under Notification No. 8/97-C.E. could not be denied, and the assessee&#039;s entitlement was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30963</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>