<?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>1999 (4) TMI 216 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91380</link>
    <description>Vegetable non-essential oil that had undergone alkali treatment and bleaching remained &quot;processed oil&quot; after subsequent hydrogenation into hardened technical oil. The further hardening process did not, by itself, change the essential identity of the oil or take it outside the scope of the notification covering processed oil. The exemption under Notification No. 33/63, as amended, therefore continued to apply, and denial of the benefit was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:23:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=128442" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (4) TMI 216 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91380</link>
      <description>Vegetable non-essential oil that had undergone alkali treatment and bleaching remained &quot;processed oil&quot; after subsequent hydrogenation into hardened technical oil. The further hardening process did not, by itself, change the essential identity of the oil or take it outside the scope of the notification covering processed oil. The exemption under Notification No. 33/63, as amended, therefore continued to apply, and denial of the benefit was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91380</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>