<?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>1995 (10) TMI 114 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84578</link>
    <description>Methane produced from raw naphtha in premises declared as a refinery under Rule 140(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated as eligible for exemption under Notification No. 276/67-C.E. The exemption applied to excisable goods falling under Chapter 27 manufactured in the declared refinery and used within the refinery or in the manufacture of scheduled goods. Rule 140(2) was read as creating a legal fiction that the declared refinery functioned as a warehouse, and the refinery declaration was not confined only to the raw naphtha input. A narrow reading by the lower authorities was rejected, and the notification benefit was considered applicable to methane so produced and consumed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Jul 2011 18:10:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121722" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (10) TMI 114 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84578</link>
      <description>Methane produced from raw naphtha in premises declared as a refinery under Rule 140(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated as eligible for exemption under Notification No. 276/67-C.E. The exemption applied to excisable goods falling under Chapter 27 manufactured in the declared refinery and used within the refinery or in the manufacture of scheduled goods. Rule 140(2) was read as creating a legal fiction that the declared refinery functioned as a warehouse, and the refinery declaration was not confined only to the raw naphtha input. A narrow reading by the lower authorities was rejected, and the notification benefit was considered applicable to methane so produced and consumed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84578</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>