<?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>1994 (1) TMI 106 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44134</link>
    <description>Notification No. 119/75-C.E. applied to rails supplied free of cost by the Railways for fabrication into points and crossings, because the exemption covered job work where an article is supplied by the customer, processed, and returned after the intended manufacture. The court treated the decisive features as customer supply and return after processing, and held that the article need not retain identical commercial identity or nomenclature throughout. On the admitted facts, the rails were only modified and returned for their intended use, so duty was payable only on the job-work charges and not on the full value of the goods. The limitation objection under Section 11A was not decided.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Jun 2010 12:18:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=82663" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (1) TMI 106 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44134</link>
      <description>Notification No. 119/75-C.E. applied to rails supplied free of cost by the Railways for fabrication into points and crossings, because the exemption covered job work where an article is supplied by the customer, processed, and returned after the intended manufacture. The court treated the decisive features as customer supply and return after processing, and held that the article need not retain identical commercial identity or nomenclature throughout. On the admitted facts, the rails were only modified and returned for their intended use, so duty was payable only on the job-work charges and not on the full value of the goods. The limitation objection under Section 11A was not decided.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44134</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>