<?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 (9) TMI 253 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87562</link>
    <description>Exemption under the notification depended on the goods being specified components intended for use in the manufacture of diesel oil operated internal combustion engines, with Chapter X procedure relevant only where such use was elsewhere than in the factory of production. The Tribunal treated actual receipt by the buyer and use in the intended manufacture as the ative factual questions; if those substantive conditions were proved, non-compliance with Chapter X would be only a technical irregularity and would not by itself defeat the exemption. On the existing record, the certificate did not conclusively establish receipt and utilisation, so the denial of exemption was not sustained and the matter was remanded for fresh factual verification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2011 18:15:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124628" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (9) TMI 253 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87562</link>
      <description>Exemption under the notification depended on the goods being specified components intended for use in the manufacture of diesel oil operated internal combustion engines, with Chapter X procedure relevant only where such use was elsewhere than in the factory of production. The Tribunal treated actual receipt by the buyer and use in the intended manufacture as the ative factual questions; if those substantive conditions were proved, non-compliance with Chapter X would be only a technical irregularity and would not by itself defeat the exemption. On the existing record, the certificate did not conclusively establish receipt and utilisation, so the denial of exemption was not sustained and the matter was remanded for fresh factual verification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87562</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>