<?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 382 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87788</link>
    <description>An exemption under Notification No. 431/86-C.E. was confined to goods manufactured in a shipyard and intended for direct use in the manufacture or repair of specified vessels and platforms. A caisson gate used to isolate a dry dock from sea water was held ineligible because, although it facilitated shipyard operations and created a dry working area, it was only ancillary to the work environment and not shown to be an integral part of the actual manufacturing or repair process. The notification was not construed broadly as covering articles merely connected with shipyard activity, since it did not use the wider phrase &quot;in relation to manufacture&quot;. The exemption claim was therefore rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:00:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124854" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (7) TMI 382 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87788</link>
      <description>An exemption under Notification No. 431/86-C.E. was confined to goods manufactured in a shipyard and intended for direct use in the manufacture or repair of specified vessels and platforms. A caisson gate used to isolate a dry dock from sea water was held ineligible because, although it facilitated shipyard operations and created a dry working area, it was only ancillary to the work environment and not shown to be an integral part of the actual manufacturing or repair process. The notification was not construed broadly as covering articles merely connected with shipyard activity, since it did not use the wider phrase &quot;in relation to manufacture&quot;. The exemption claim was therefore rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87788</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>