<?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 (7) TMI 324 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90655</link>
    <description>Exemption under Notification No. 281/86-C.E. was available only for goods manufactured in a workshop within the factory for repairing or maintaining already installed machinery. The assessee failed to show that the captively used machinery items were merely replacement parts for such maintenance, and their nomenclature indicated direct use in production. The department&#039;s evidence that the items were manufactured to meet increased requirements was not rebutted. A bare assertion that the goods were non-marketable, or that there was no mens rea, did not establish eligibility for the notification benefit. The exemption was therefore denied and the demand sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Oct 2011 15:48:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127717" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (7) TMI 324 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90655</link>
      <description>Exemption under Notification No. 281/86-C.E. was available only for goods manufactured in a workshop within the factory for repairing or maintaining already installed machinery. The assessee failed to show that the captively used machinery items were merely replacement parts for such maintenance, and their nomenclature indicated direct use in production. The department&#039;s evidence that the items were manufactured to meet increased requirements was not rebutted. A bare assertion that the goods were non-marketable, or that there was no mens rea, did not establish eligibility for the notification benefit. The exemption was therefore denied and the demand sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90655</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>