<?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 (10) TMI 386 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117119</link>
    <description>Notification No. 115/75-C.E. was treated as applicable to goods cleared by a composite oil mill and solvent extraction unit, with the analysis relying on earlier Tribunal decisions on similar facts. The factory&#039;s activities in crushing oilseeds and undertaking solvent extraction supported its character as an eligible industry, and the issue of an &#039;AB&#039; licence from the Directorate of Vanaspati Vegetable Oils and Fats was used as corroborative support. A precedent concerning a unit engaged only in refining raw oil was distinguished because the present unit itself carried out the crushing and extraction process, making the refund claim on duty paid under protest sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Jun 2012 14:47:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154117" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (10) TMI 386 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117119</link>
      <description>Notification No. 115/75-C.E. was treated as applicable to goods cleared by a composite oil mill and solvent extraction unit, with the analysis relying on earlier Tribunal decisions on similar facts. The factory&#039;s activities in crushing oilseeds and undertaking solvent extraction supported its character as an eligible industry, and the issue of an &#039;AB&#039; licence from the Directorate of Vanaspati Vegetable Oils and Fats was used as corroborative support. A precedent concerning a unit engaged only in refining raw oil was distinguished because the present unit itself carried out the crushing and extraction process, making the refund claim on duty paid under protest sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117119</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>