<?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>2003 (12) TMI 387 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110425</link>
    <description>Captive consumption of kraft paper used to manufacture corrugated boards and cartons was not required to be included in the aggregate quantity for the exemption limit, because the explanatory amendment to the notification was treated as clarificatory and related back to the original wording. The clarification stated that first clearances would exclude paper and paper board, or articles made therefrom, attracting nil duty or exemption under another notification. On that basis, exempt or nil-rated intermediate goods consumed within the factory could not be counted again for the threshold, as this would duplicate the accounting. The assessee was entitled to the notification benefit on this issue, subject only to limited factual verification of cartons allegedly cleared without duty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2012 17:15:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147441" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (12) TMI 387 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110425</link>
      <description>Captive consumption of kraft paper used to manufacture corrugated boards and cartons was not required to be included in the aggregate quantity for the exemption limit, because the explanatory amendment to the notification was treated as clarificatory and related back to the original wording. The clarification stated that first clearances would exclude paper and paper board, or articles made therefrom, attracting nil duty or exemption under another notification. On that basis, exempt or nil-rated intermediate goods consumed within the factory could not be counted again for the threshold, as this would duplicate the accounting. The assessee was entitled to the notification benefit on this issue, subject only to limited factual verification of cartons allegedly cleared without duty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110425</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>