<?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 (12) TMI 209 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90226</link>
    <description>Under the advance licence customs exemption, goods need not be physically consumed in manufacture if they are materials required for producing the resultant products. The notification distinguished between materials imported for manufacture and replenishment of materials used in manufacture, and that distinction was treated as material. On the facts, Dowtherm was needed for indirect heating in polymerisation, while tri ethylene glycol was needed to clean machinery and remove polymer residue so the finished products could be made to the required quality. Both were therefore essential to manufacture, and exemption was available; denial of the benefit was not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2011 14:57:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127288" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (12) TMI 209 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90226</link>
      <description>Under the advance licence customs exemption, goods need not be physically consumed in manufacture if they are materials required for producing the resultant products. The notification distinguished between materials imported for manufacture and replenishment of materials used in manufacture, and that distinction was treated as material. On the facts, Dowtherm was needed for indirect heating in polymerisation, while tri ethylene glycol was needed to clean machinery and remove polymer residue so the finished products could be made to the required quality. Both were therefore essential to manufacture, and exemption was available; denial of the benefit was not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90226</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>