<?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 (5) TMI 441 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116017</link>
    <description>A credit notification referring to ethyl alcohol used in manufacture was interpreted as covering only the ethyl alcohol content of denatured spirit, not the denaturing agent or the entire composite input. The Tribunal relied on an earlier construction of the expression &quot;ethyl alcohol&quot; and found no material to displace that interpretation. The eligible benefit was therefore confined to the identifiable alcohol component alone, and the broader claim on the whole quantity of denatured spirit was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Jun 2012 15:31:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153015" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (5) TMI 441 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116017</link>
      <description>A credit notification referring to ethyl alcohol used in manufacture was interpreted as covering only the ethyl alcohol content of denatured spirit, not the denaturing agent or the entire composite input. The Tribunal relied on an earlier construction of the expression &quot;ethyl alcohol&quot; and found no material to displace that interpretation. The eligible benefit was therefore confined to the identifiable alcohol component alone, and the broader claim on the whole quantity of denatured spirit was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116017</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>