<?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>2002 (4) TMI 429 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102075</link>
    <description>Explosives used in copper mines for blasting and ore extraction were treated by the majority as goods used in the manufacture of copper concentrates for purposes of exemption under Notification No. 191/87 as amended by Notification No. 63/91. The majority reasoned that mining and concentration formed an integrated process, so denying the benefit would defeat the notification&#039;s purpose and render it ineffective. The contrary view treated mining and manufacture of concentrates as distinct activities and held that explosives used only for extraction were outside the exemption. On the majority view, the explosives qualified for exemption and the Revenue&#039;s appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 16:20:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=139124" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (4) TMI 429 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102075</link>
      <description>Explosives used in copper mines for blasting and ore extraction were treated by the majority as goods used in the manufacture of copper concentrates for purposes of exemption under Notification No. 191/87 as amended by Notification No. 63/91. The majority reasoned that mining and concentration formed an integrated process, so denying the benefit would defeat the notification&#039;s purpose and render it ineffective. The contrary view treated mining and manufacture of concentrates as distinct activities and held that explosives used only for extraction were outside the exemption. On the majority view, the explosives qualified for exemption and the Revenue&#039;s appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102075</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>