<?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>2000 (9) TMI 451 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94911</link>
    <description>Parts of storage batteries cleared under Notification No. 68/86-CE were held ineligible for exemption when they were used in the manufacture of stationary batteries at another factory after Chapter X procedure. The notification was construed strictly and limited the exemption to parts used in the factory of production for manufacture of storage batteries. The evidence accepted below showed a real distinction between storage batteries and stationary batteries, and no equivalence could be implied. The alternative claim based on stationary batteries also failed because the clearance and classification did not establish manufacture of parts of stationary batteries. The demand was sustained and the exemption denied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Dec 2011 17:26:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131970" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (9) TMI 451 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94911</link>
      <description>Parts of storage batteries cleared under Notification No. 68/86-CE were held ineligible for exemption when they were used in the manufacture of stationary batteries at another factory after Chapter X procedure. The notification was construed strictly and limited the exemption to parts used in the factory of production for manufacture of storage batteries. The evidence accepted below showed a real distinction between storage batteries and stationary batteries, and no equivalence could be implied. The alternative claim based on stationary batteries also failed because the clearance and classification did not establish manufacture of parts of stationary batteries. The demand was sustained and the exemption denied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94911</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>