<?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>2012 (10) TMI 906 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217969</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned orders, except for the issue of exemption for electricity used in allied activities. This specific matter was referred to a third member due to a difference of opinion between the judges. The Member (Judicial) held that the exemption is available for electricity used in allied activities, while the Member (Technical) held that it is not, based on the interpretation of Rule 2(k) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 11:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=191343" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (10) TMI 906 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217969</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned orders, except for the issue of exemption for electricity used in allied activities. This specific matter was referred to a third member due to a difference of opinion between the judges. The Member (Judicial) held that the exemption is available for electricity used in allied activities, while the Member (Technical) held that it is not, based on the interpretation of Rule 2(k) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217969</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>