<?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>2006 (3) TMI 601 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119457</link>
    <description>Capital goods used in quarrying or mining for a 100% export-oriented undertaking may qualify for exemption where the excavation activity is integrally connected with the manufacture of export goods. The exemption notification was read as requiring direct movement to the factory and use in producing and packaging articles meant solely for export, but the operative reasoning treated quarrying as part of the overall manufacturing process because the capital goods participated in producing the exportable granite blocks. Exemption was therefore admissible, and denial based only on use of the goods in the mining area rather than exclusively within the bonded premises was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Jul 2012 12:16:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=156454" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (3) TMI 601 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119457</link>
      <description>Capital goods used in quarrying or mining for a 100% export-oriented undertaking may qualify for exemption where the excavation activity is integrally connected with the manufacture of export goods. The exemption notification was read as requiring direct movement to the factory and use in producing and packaging articles meant solely for export, but the operative reasoning treated quarrying as part of the overall manufacturing process because the capital goods participated in producing the exportable granite blocks. Exemption was therefore admissible, and denial based only on use of the goods in the mining area rather than exclusively within the bonded premises was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119457</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>