<?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>2009 (9) TMI 863 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155085</link>
    <description>Notification No. 67/95-C.E. is discussed in relation to molasses used to manufacture undenatured ethyl alcohol rectified spirit. The text explains that the exemption for inputs may be denied only where the final product is exempted or nil-rated excisable goods; goods outside the central excise levy cannot be treated as exempted or nil-rated for that purpose. It also notes that factual verification was still required on whether the rectified spirit cleared by the assessee was alcoholic liquor for home consumption, so the matter was remanded for limited verification. A departmental cross-objection against a stay order was held to have no shown legal basis and was rejected as not maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Jun 2017 13:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172116" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (9) TMI 863 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155085</link>
      <description>Notification No. 67/95-C.E. is discussed in relation to molasses used to manufacture undenatured ethyl alcohol rectified spirit. The text explains that the exemption for inputs may be denied only where the final product is exempted or nil-rated excisable goods; goods outside the central excise levy cannot be treated as exempted or nil-rated for that purpose. It also notes that factual verification was still required on whether the rectified spirit cleared by the assessee was alcoholic liquor for home consumption, so the matter was remanded for limited verification. A departmental cross-objection against a stay order was held to have no shown legal basis and was rejected as not maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155085</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>