<?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>1992 (10) TMI 84 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43420</link>
    <description>Plastic granules used to manufacture containers for packing excisable final products were treated as inputs under Rule 57A because the rule covered goods used in or in relation to manufacture, including packaging materials and the raw materials from which they are made. The broader meaning of manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and Chapter Note 4 of Chapter 33 supported the view that treatment making goods marketable forms part of manufacture. Credit was not denied merely because the containers were exempt from duty; they were treated as intermediate products for Rule 57D(2), so MODVAT credit remained available on the inputs used to produce them.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Jun 2010 09:54:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=81949" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (10) TMI 84 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43420</link>
      <description>Plastic granules used to manufacture containers for packing excisable final products were treated as inputs under Rule 57A because the rule covered goods used in or in relation to manufacture, including packaging materials and the raw materials from which they are made. The broader meaning of manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and Chapter Note 4 of Chapter 33 supported the view that treatment making goods marketable forms part of manufacture. Credit was not denied merely because the containers were exempt from duty; they were treated as intermediate products for Rule 57D(2), so MODVAT credit remained available on the inputs used to produce them.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43420</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>