<?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 (10) TMI 124 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89393</link>
    <description>Methane manufactured and used within the appellant&#039;s premises was held eligible for exemption under Notification No. 276/67-C.E. because the premises had been declared a refinery for raw naphtha. The Tribunal applied its earlier decision in the appellant&#039;s own case and treated that ruling as settling the issue. It concluded that the refinery declaration covered the integrated production activity, so methane generated in that operation fell within the exemption and denial of the benefit was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sun, 11 Oct 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Sep 2011 17:49:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=126455" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (10) TMI 124 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89393</link>
      <description>Methane manufactured and used within the appellant&#039;s premises was held eligible for exemption under Notification No. 276/67-C.E. because the premises had been declared a refinery for raw naphtha. The Tribunal applied its earlier decision in the appellant&#039;s own case and treated that ruling as settling the issue. It concluded that the refinery declaration covered the integrated production activity, so methane generated in that operation fell within the exemption and denial of the benefit was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Sun, 11 Oct 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89393</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>