<?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>2003 (11) TMI 209 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52468</link>
    <description>Duty was not chargeable on scrap generated during job work at the assessee&#039;s premises where the earlier departmental provisions had ceased to operate and the applicable provision dealt with utilisation of credit in relation to final products. Scrap arising in the course of manufacture was treated as a final product, and the job worker was not to be distinguished from a manufacturer of waste merely because the raw material belonged to the principal supplier. The contention that clearance of scrap should be treated as clearance on behalf of the principal supplier was rejected, so the duty demand and accompanying penalties were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Oct 2010 10:20:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90945" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (11) TMI 209 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52468</link>
      <description>Duty was not chargeable on scrap generated during job work at the assessee&#039;s premises where the earlier departmental provisions had ceased to operate and the applicable provision dealt with utilisation of credit in relation to final products. Scrap arising in the course of manufacture was treated as a final product, and the job worker was not to be distinguished from a manufacturer of waste merely because the raw material belonged to the principal supplier. The contention that clearance of scrap should be treated as clearance on behalf of the principal supplier was rejected, so the duty demand and accompanying penalties were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52468</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>