<?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 211 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51350</link>
    <description>Rule 57CC was examined in relation to coal tar claimed to be non-excisable or, alternatively, chargeable at nil rate, with the position that the rule applies only where common inputs are used in both dutiable and exempted or nil-rated final products. Because the authorities below had not properly examined whether coal tar was in fact non-excisable, that question required reconsideration on remand. The assessee&#039;s claim that no common Modvatable inputs were used in refining coal tar, and that credit was reversed where such inputs were used, also required fresh verification of the factual record. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Sep 2010 12:32:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89828" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (1) TMI 211 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51350</link>
      <description>Rule 57CC was examined in relation to coal tar claimed to be non-excisable or, alternatively, chargeable at nil rate, with the position that the rule applies only where common inputs are used in both dutiable and exempted or nil-rated final products. Because the authorities below had not properly examined whether coal tar was in fact non-excisable, that question required reconsideration on remand. The assessee&#039;s claim that no common Modvatable inputs were used in refining coal tar, and that credit was reversed where such inputs were used, also required fresh verification of the factual record. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.</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=51350</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>