<?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 (8) TMI 165 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87091</link>
    <description>An exemption under Notification No. 115/75 was confined to the goods and industries expressly covered by its terms, including the scheduled oil mill and solvent extraction industry. Oxygen gas generated in the course of vanaspati production did not fall within that exempted class, because the respondent manufactured goods under Headings 15.04 and 15.08, and the amendment was treated as clarificatory rather than enlarging the exemption. The earlier Tariff Item 68-based exemption also did not cover oxygen gas, so the later amendment could not extend benefit to goods never intended to be exempt. The exemption was therefore inadmissible and the departmental appeal succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Sep 2011 16:55:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124158" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (8) TMI 165 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87091</link>
      <description>An exemption under Notification No. 115/75 was confined to the goods and industries expressly covered by its terms, including the scheduled oil mill and solvent extraction industry. Oxygen gas generated in the course of vanaspati production did not fall within that exempted class, because the respondent manufactured goods under Headings 15.04 and 15.08, and the amendment was treated as clarificatory rather than enlarging the exemption. The earlier Tariff Item 68-based exemption also did not cover oxygen gas, so the later amendment could not extend benefit to goods never intended to be exempt. The exemption was therefore inadmissible and the departmental appeal succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87091</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>