<?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 (7) TMI 300 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87052</link>
    <description>Retrospective exemption under Notification No. 217/86-C.E., read with the Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986, applied to captive use of Tungsten Powder in the same factory for manufacture of Tool Tips during the disputed period. The exemption had existed before the tariff change, and the later notification was treated as restoring that position from 02-04-1986 under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The legislative purpose was to cure unintended duty consequences arising from the new tariff regime, so the captive clearances were held eligible for exemption and the contrary view of the lower appellate authority was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Sep 2011 14:53:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124119" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (7) TMI 300 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87052</link>
      <description>Retrospective exemption under Notification No. 217/86-C.E., read with the Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986, applied to captive use of Tungsten Powder in the same factory for manufacture of Tool Tips during the disputed period. The exemption had existed before the tariff change, and the later notification was treated as restoring that position from 02-04-1986 under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The legislative purpose was to cure unintended duty consequences arising from the new tariff regime, so the captive clearances were held eligible for exemption and the contrary view of the lower appellate authority was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87052</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>