<?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 (8) TMI 304 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91097</link>
    <description>Pond aerators used in aquafarms for prawn culture were treated as machinery used for production of commodities, because prawn culture was viewed as a process that converts non-tradeable seedlings into a marketable commodity through growth and nourishment. The expression &quot;production of commodities&quot; was given its ordinary commercial meaning since the notification did not define it, and the interpretation was read dynamically to reflect technological development. On that basis, the equipment qualified for the exemption benefit under Notification No. 49/95 read with Tariff Heading 8479.89, and the benefit was upheld in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2011 17:16:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=128159" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (8) TMI 304 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91097</link>
      <description>Pond aerators used in aquafarms for prawn culture were treated as machinery used for production of commodities, because prawn culture was viewed as a process that converts non-tradeable seedlings into a marketable commodity through growth and nourishment. The expression &quot;production of commodities&quot; was given its ordinary commercial meaning since the notification did not define it, and the interpretation was read dynamically to reflect technological development. On that basis, the equipment qualified for the exemption benefit under Notification No. 49/95 read with Tariff Heading 8479.89, and the benefit was upheld in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91097</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>