<?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>2004 (10) TMI 201 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53500</link>
    <description>Waste and scrap arising during manufacture of excisable goods was treated as outside the scope of Rule 57S(2)(C), because that rule applies only where capital goods are disposed of as scrap after Modvat credit is taken. On the stated facts, the scrap did not result from disposal of capital goods, but from the manufacturing process itself. It was also found not to fall under any tariff heading, so it was not exigible to duty in those circumstances.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:58:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=91977" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (10) TMI 201 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53500</link>
      <description>Waste and scrap arising during manufacture of excisable goods was treated as outside the scope of Rule 57S(2)(C), because that rule applies only where capital goods are disposed of as scrap after Modvat credit is taken. On the stated facts, the scrap did not result from disposal of capital goods, but from the manufacturing process itself. It was also found not to fall under any tariff heading, so it was not exigible to duty in those circumstances.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53500</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>