<?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>2010 (11) TMI 121 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203055</link>
    <description>An amendment to the explanation of a small scale exemption notification was held to qualify only the deeming treatment of captively consumed inputs for computing aggregate clearances, and not to defeat exemption where the assessee otherwise satisfied the main notification conditions. Captively consumed plastic sheets were not sought to be exempted under the computation clause itself, and clearances of exempt plastic articles were excluded from aggregate value in any event. On that footing, the plastic sheets remained eligible for small scale exemption under the principal notification, and the departmental challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 May 2011 09:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=176624" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (11) TMI 121 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203055</link>
      <description>An amendment to the explanation of a small scale exemption notification was held to qualify only the deeming treatment of captively consumed inputs for computing aggregate clearances, and not to defeat exemption where the assessee otherwise satisfied the main notification conditions. Captively consumed plastic sheets were not sought to be exempted under the computation clause itself, and clearances of exempt plastic articles were excluded from aggregate value in any event. On that footing, the plastic sheets remained eligible for small scale exemption under the principal notification, and the departmental challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203055</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>