<?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>2005 (7) TMI 389 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115501</link>
    <description>Chemicals used in demineralising water for captive steam generation qualified for Notification No. 217/86 because they were consumed in an integral manufacturing process connected with paper production. The denial of exemption could not rest on a mere presumption that steam or electricity generated from it might be diverted elsewhere; no concrete evidence of such diversion was shown. Steam remained an intermediate product captively consumed in manufacture, and the generation of electricity from high-pressure steam was treated as part of the same energy-transfer process. On that basis, the exemption could not be refused, and the demand and penalty were unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 May 2012 14:10:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152500" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (7) TMI 389 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115501</link>
      <description>Chemicals used in demineralising water for captive steam generation qualified for Notification No. 217/86 because they were consumed in an integral manufacturing process connected with paper production. The denial of exemption could not rest on a mere presumption that steam or electricity generated from it might be diverted elsewhere; no concrete evidence of such diversion was shown. Steam remained an intermediate product captively consumed in manufacture, and the generation of electricity from high-pressure steam was treated as part of the same energy-transfer process. On that basis, the exemption could not be refused, and the demand and penalty were unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115501</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>