<?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>2000 (12) TMI 178 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50224</link>
    <description>Refund of excise duty on grey calendered cotton fabrics was held admissible because calendering was not one of the processes treated as manufacture under Chapter 52, and it could not be forced within the phrase &quot;or any other process.&quot; As the duty paid on the cleared goods was therefore not sustainable, refund was allowed, subject to the assessee producing the PLA copy showing the debit so the same duty payment was not claimed twice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Aug 2010 14:00:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88704" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (12) TMI 178 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50224</link>
      <description>Refund of excise duty on grey calendered cotton fabrics was held admissible because calendering was not one of the processes treated as manufacture under Chapter 52, and it could not be forced within the phrase &quot;or any other process.&quot; As the duty paid on the cleared goods was therefore not sustainable, refund was allowed, subject to the assessee producing the PLA copy showing the debit so the same duty payment was not claimed twice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50224</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>