<?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>2004 (8) TMI 533 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114108</link>
    <description>Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 permits removal of materials without duty for use in manufacture or processing of export goods, subject to Commissioner approval, and Notification No. 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.) operates as the procedural framework under that rule. The use of the term &quot;procurement&quot; in the notification does not narrow the broader language of Rule 19 itself. On the stated facts, goods were removed with permission of the proper officer for processing and return to the principal manufacturer for export, so a prima facie case existed for the benefit of Notification No. 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.) and waiver of pre-deposit. The separate claim under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. was prima facie not available because the goods were not covered by that exemption.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 12:54:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151109" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (8) TMI 533 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114108</link>
      <description>Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 permits removal of materials without duty for use in manufacture or processing of export goods, subject to Commissioner approval, and Notification No. 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.) operates as the procedural framework under that rule. The use of the term &quot;procurement&quot; in the notification does not narrow the broader language of Rule 19 itself. On the stated facts, goods were removed with permission of the proper officer for processing and return to the principal manufacturer for export, so a prima facie case existed for the benefit of Notification No. 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.) and waiver of pre-deposit. The separate claim under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. was prima facie not available because the goods were not covered by that exemption.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114108</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>