<?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>1986 (2) TMI 60 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41682</link>
    <description>Goods manufactured on a job-work basis from raw materials supplied by the principal and returned after processing were treated as covered by Notification No. 119/75-C.E., because the notification extended to goods falling under Tariff Item 68 manufactured in a factory as job work and returned to the supplier after manufacture. On the admitted facts, only job charges were paid and the value of the supplied materials fell within the exemption, so excise duty could not be levied on that value. The contrary assessment was therefore unsustainable, and the demand based on the supplied raw materials was set aside; the validity of Rule 10A was left open.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Feb 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Jun 2010 13:01:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80211" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (2) TMI 60 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41682</link>
      <description>Goods manufactured on a job-work basis from raw materials supplied by the principal and returned after processing were treated as covered by Notification No. 119/75-C.E., because the notification extended to goods falling under Tariff Item 68 manufactured in a factory as job work and returned to the supplier after manufacture. On the admitted facts, only job charges were paid and the value of the supplied materials fell within the exemption, so excise duty could not be levied on that value. The contrary assessment was therefore unsustainable, and the demand based on the supplied raw materials was set aside; the validity of Rule 10A was left open.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Feb 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41682</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>