<?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 (8) TMI 714 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107083</link>
    <description>Exemption under Notification No. 58/86 could not be denied merely because the value of the tools was recovered from buyers, where the tools were admittedly manufactured and used in the same factory for producing the final product. The notification required only in-factory use of the tools and imposed no condition on ownership. Recovery of value from buyers did not defeat the exemption, so denial of the notification benefit was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Mar 2012 15:10:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144102" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (8) TMI 714 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107083</link>
      <description>Exemption under Notification No. 58/86 could not be denied merely because the value of the tools was recovered from buyers, where the tools were admittedly manufactured and used in the same factory for producing the final product. The notification required only in-factory use of the tools and imposed no condition on ownership. Recovery of value from buyers did not defeat the exemption, so denial of the notification benefit was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107083</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>