<?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>1985 (7) TMI 95 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41614</link>
    <description>Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 allowed proforma credit where duty-paid material or component parts were sent outside the factory for operations necessary for manufacture and then returned for use in producing excisable goods. On the stated facts, electrical stampings sent out for conversion into die-cast rotors and brought back for manufacture of electric motors fell within that procedure. The refusal to extend credit did not properly address the scope of Rule 56A(7) or the exemption notification linked to compliance with that rule, so the petitioner was entitled to the facility subject to conditions imposed by the Collector.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jul 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Jun 2010 18:03:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80144" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (7) TMI 95 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41614</link>
      <description>Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 allowed proforma credit where duty-paid material or component parts were sent outside the factory for operations necessary for manufacture and then returned for use in producing excisable goods. On the stated facts, electrical stampings sent out for conversion into die-cast rotors and brought back for manufacture of electric motors fell within that procedure. The refusal to extend credit did not properly address the scope of Rule 56A(7) or the exemption notification linked to compliance with that rule, so the petitioner was entitled to the facility subject to conditions imposed by the Collector.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jul 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41614</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>