<?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>2005 (4) TMI 148 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54072</link>
    <description>Rule 57CC was applied where zinc concentrate on which credit was taken was used to produce sulphuric acid cleared without duty, because the input remained the zinc concentrate and separate accounts were not maintained. Sulphuric acid was not accepted as a mere by-product; its conscious, commercial production and regular clearance supported treatment as a subsidiary product rather than residue, so Rule 57D did not displace the credit reversal mechanism. The note also records that the later introduction of recovery machinery did not erase the underlying liability, although the penalty imposed in the proceedings below was not sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 May 2024 13:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92549" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (4) TMI 148 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54072</link>
      <description>Rule 57CC was applied where zinc concentrate on which credit was taken was used to produce sulphuric acid cleared without duty, because the input remained the zinc concentrate and separate accounts were not maintained. Sulphuric acid was not accepted as a mere by-product; its conscious, commercial production and regular clearance supported treatment as a subsidiary product rather than residue, so Rule 57D did not displace the credit reversal mechanism. The note also records that the later introduction of recovery machinery did not erase the underlying liability, although the penalty imposed in the proceedings below was not sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54072</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>