<?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>1996 (11) TMI 221 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86508</link>
    <description>Stationary batteries cleared without electrolyte, with electrolyte supplied separately for later filling, required fresh examination for exemption under Notification No. 68/86 and treatment as a single excisable article under Rule 2(a). The battery was described as a functional unit, and the separate supply of electrolyte for transport convenience did not by itself resolve the exemption question. Because the lower authority had not properly examined the notification and interpretative rule, the impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for de novo adjudication, with the assessee obtaining the benefit of remand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2011 12:43:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123575" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (11) TMI 221 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86508</link>
      <description>Stationary batteries cleared without electrolyte, with electrolyte supplied separately for later filling, required fresh examination for exemption under Notification No. 68/86 and treatment as a single excisable article under Rule 2(a). The battery was described as a functional unit, and the separate supply of electrolyte for transport convenience did not by itself resolve the exemption question. Because the lower authority had not properly examined the notification and interpretative rule, the impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for de novo adjudication, with the assessee obtaining the benefit of remand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86508</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>