<?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>1987 (4) TMI 329 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74755</link>
    <description>For exemption notification purposes, a &quot;generating station&quot; was construed broadly to include any station generating electricity, including a power unit attached to a factory, unless the notification expressly restricts that class of station. On that construction, the factory-based generating unit fell within Notification No. 105/78 and qualified for the uniform reduction of 10% of electricity generated. Electricity consumed in crushing wheat and pumping water did not qualify under Notification No. 52/78 because those uses were outside the exempted industrial unit activity. The order was therefore sustained in substance, with the assessee succeeding on the first issue and failing on the second.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Jun 2011 17:35:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=113034" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (4) TMI 329 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74755</link>
      <description>For exemption notification purposes, a &quot;generating station&quot; was construed broadly to include any station generating electricity, including a power unit attached to a factory, unless the notification expressly restricts that class of station. On that construction, the factory-based generating unit fell within Notification No. 105/78 and qualified for the uniform reduction of 10% of electricity generated. Electricity consumed in crushing wheat and pumping water did not qualify under Notification No. 52/78 because those uses were outside the exempted industrial unit activity. The order was therefore sustained in substance, with the assessee succeeding on the first issue and failing on the second.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74755</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>