<?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>2001 (3) TMI 543 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97104</link>
    <description>An exemption notification covering cut tobacco for use in the manufacture of machine rolled cigarettes was construed to apply where the goods were intended for that use, even if they were not ultimately so used. The operative test was the wording of the notification, which supported exemption on intended use rather than actual consumption in manufacture. On that basis, the lower appellate view was upheld and the duty demand founded on denial of the notification did not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 24 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Jan 2012 10:49:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134162" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (3) TMI 543 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97104</link>
      <description>An exemption notification covering cut tobacco for use in the manufacture of machine rolled cigarettes was construed to apply where the goods were intended for that use, even if they were not ultimately so used. The operative test was the wording of the notification, which supported exemption on intended use rather than actual consumption in manufacture. On that basis, the lower appellate view was upheld and the duty demand founded on denial of the notification did not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 24 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97104</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>