<?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 (11) TMI 332 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117146</link>
    <description>Notification No. 89/95-C.E. denied exemption for waste, sparing and scrap cleared from a factory where excisable goods other than exempted goods were also manufactured. Because the factory admittedly produced both excisable and exempted goods, the proviso to the notification was not satisfied, so the plastic waste and scrap did not qualify for exemption. Duty paid on such clearances was therefore treated as correctly paid, and no refund was admissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:18:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154144" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (11) TMI 332 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117146</link>
      <description>Notification No. 89/95-C.E. denied exemption for waste, sparing and scrap cleared from a factory where excisable goods other than exempted goods were also manufactured. Because the factory admittedly produced both excisable and exempted goods, the proviso to the notification was not satisfied, so the plastic waste and scrap did not qualify for exemption. Duty paid on such clearances was therefore treated as correctly paid, and no refund was admissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117146</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>