<?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 (12) TMI 242 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87885</link>
    <description>An exemption notification limited to goods used in or in relation to manufacture of export products, and to packing material for export goods, does not extend to locally procured cement for a 100% EOU unless the notification expressly covers it. Treating cement as capital goods for setting up the unit was insufficient to bring it within Notification No. 1/95. The duty benefit was therefore unavailable on the stated facts, and the exemption claim failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Sep 2011 15:52:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124951" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (12) TMI 242 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87885</link>
      <description>An exemption notification limited to goods used in or in relation to manufacture of export products, and to packing material for export goods, does not extend to locally procured cement for a 100% EOU unless the notification expressly covers it. Treating cement as capital goods for setting up the unit was insufficient to bring it within Notification No. 1/95. The duty benefit was therefore unavailable on the stated facts, and the exemption claim failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87885</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>