<?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 (7) TMI 878 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106023</link>
    <description>The Tribunal applied its earlier majority view on aggregate clearances under Explanation II to Notification No. 1/93-CE. It held that the value of inputs manufactured by the assessee and captively consumed in making the final product was not to be included in the aggregate clearances for denying the exemption benefit. On that reasoning, the assessee remained entitled to the notification benefit and the adverse order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Mar 2012 13:24:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=143058" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (7) TMI 878 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106023</link>
      <description>The Tribunal applied its earlier majority view on aggregate clearances under Explanation II to Notification No. 1/93-CE. It held that the value of inputs manufactured by the assessee and captively consumed in making the final product was not to be included in the aggregate clearances for denying the exemption benefit. On that reasoning, the assessee remained entitled to the notification benefit and the adverse order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106023</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>