<?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>2002 (1) TMI 94 - CEGAT, COURT NO. IV, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48912</link>
    <description>Broken ceramic glazed tiles emerging during sorting and packing were treated as scrap, not excisable goods, because they were not shown to be marketable as usable tiles and were cleared under an exemption available only for scrap. On that factual footing, the tiles were not liable to duty. Rule 57D also protected Modvat credit where part of the inputs was contained in waste, refuse or by-product arising in manufacture, and scrap was treated as commercially synonymous with waste. The absence of the word &quot;scrap&quot; in the rule did not defeat relief, so input credit on the duty paid on inputs remained admissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Aug 2010 12:06:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87392" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (1) TMI 94 - CEGAT, COURT NO. IV, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48912</link>
      <description>Broken ceramic glazed tiles emerging during sorting and packing were treated as scrap, not excisable goods, because they were not shown to be marketable as usable tiles and were cleared under an exemption available only for scrap. On that factual footing, the tiles were not liable to duty. Rule 57D also protected Modvat credit where part of the inputs was contained in waste, refuse or by-product arising in manufacture, and scrap was treated as commercially synonymous with waste. The absence of the word &quot;scrap&quot; in the rule did not defeat relief, so input credit on the duty paid on inputs remained admissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48912</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>