<?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>1998 (8) TMI 197 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89179</link>
    <description>The exemption under Notification No. 24/91 depended not merely on the presence of a vertical shaft kiln in the factory, but on clinker used in cement manufacture being produced by that prescribed kiln. As the clinker had been purchased from outside and no evidence showed that it was manufactured using a vertical shaft kiln, the notification condition was not satisfied. Applying earlier tribunal reasoning that treats clinker as an intermediate stage in cement manufacture, the benefit of the notification was denied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Sep 2011 18:25:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=126242" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (8) TMI 197 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89179</link>
      <description>The exemption under Notification No. 24/91 depended not merely on the presence of a vertical shaft kiln in the factory, but on clinker used in cement manufacture being produced by that prescribed kiln. As the clinker had been purchased from outside and no evidence showed that it was manufactured using a vertical shaft kiln, the notification condition was not satisfied. Applying earlier tribunal reasoning that treats clinker as an intermediate stage in cement manufacture, the benefit of the notification was denied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89179</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>