<?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>1997 (6) TMI 123 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86836</link>
    <description>Synthesis gas supplied by the specified manufacturing unit to the corresponding heavy water plant qualified for exemption under Notification No. 415/86-C.E. where the gas was used for manufacture, testing or commissioning and later returned for use in fertiliser manufacture. The apparent shortfall between quantity supplied and quantity returned was treated as consumption in the heavy water extraction process, not as a disqualifying loss. On the admitted facts, both units fell within the notification, the gas was used for heavy water manufacture, and no non-compliance with Chapter X procedure or the proper officer&#039;s satisfaction was established, so the exemption was correctly availed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Aug 2011 16:47:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123903" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (6) TMI 123 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86836</link>
      <description>Synthesis gas supplied by the specified manufacturing unit to the corresponding heavy water plant qualified for exemption under Notification No. 415/86-C.E. where the gas was used for manufacture, testing or commissioning and later returned for use in fertiliser manufacture. The apparent shortfall between quantity supplied and quantity returned was treated as consumption in the heavy water extraction process, not as a disqualifying loss. On the admitted facts, both units fell within the notification, the gas was used for heavy water manufacture, and no non-compliance with Chapter X procedure or the proper officer&#039;s satisfaction was established, so the exemption was correctly availed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86836</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>