<?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 (8) TMI 557 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94784</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the lower order, ruling in favor of the Respondents and dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal. The Tribunal found that the benefit of Notification No. 181/88 was applicable to the Respondents as they did not use power in manufacturing the metal containers, which were made using lids purchased from another manufacturer. The Tribunal distinguished the case from precedent, emphasizing that the lids were not manufactured by the Respondents and that they did not have a financial interest in the manufacturer of the lids. The Department failed to provide evidence showing power usage by the Respondents, leading to the Tribunal&#039;s decision in favor of the Respondents.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Dec 2011 17:31:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131843" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (8) TMI 557 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94784</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the lower order, ruling in favor of the Respondents and dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal. The Tribunal found that the benefit of Notification No. 181/88 was applicable to the Respondents as they did not use power in manufacturing the metal containers, which were made using lids purchased from another manufacturer. The Tribunal distinguished the case from precedent, emphasizing that the lids were not manufactured by the Respondents and that they did not have a financial interest in the manufacturer of the lids. The Department failed to provide evidence showing power usage by the Respondents, leading to the Tribunal&#039;s decision in favor of the Respondents.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94784</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>