<?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 (9) TMI 443 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120284</link>
    <description>Low sulphur heavy stock used as secondary fuel for boiler start-up and flame stabilisation qualified for exemption because &quot;fuel intended for use&quot; covered an integral part of the electricity generation process. The exemption was, however, denied for the quantity relatable to electricity consumed within the undertaking&#039;s own plant and lignite mine, as the notification expressly excluded electricity produced for captive use rather than sale. The extended period of limitation was not invocable because the use of the fuel had been disclosed, so suppression or wilful misstatement was not established, and the connected penalty also failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=157280" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (9) TMI 443 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120284</link>
      <description>Low sulphur heavy stock used as secondary fuel for boiler start-up and flame stabilisation qualified for exemption because &quot;fuel intended for use&quot; covered an integral part of the electricity generation process. The exemption was, however, denied for the quantity relatable to electricity consumed within the undertaking&#039;s own plant and lignite mine, as the notification expressly excluded electricity produced for captive use rather than sale. The extended period of limitation was not invocable because the use of the fuel had been disclosed, so suppression or wilful misstatement was not established, and the connected penalty also failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120284</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>