<?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>1985 (3) TMI 270 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167359</link>
    <description>Oxygen consumed within an integrated gasification-based fertilizer manufacturing process satisfied the condition in Notification No. 145/71-C.E. that the goods be used in the manufacture of fertilizers. The exemption could not be denied merely because final fertilizer output was not shown, where the oxygen entered the plant system, was consumed in the process, and there was no finding of diversion, clandestine clearance, or misuse. The contention that the gas was not marketable oxygen because of lower purity was not accepted as a basis to refuse exemption in these circumstances. The disputed oxygen was therefore treated as eligible for the notified excise exemption.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Mar 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2014 13:11:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=371365" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (3) TMI 270 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167359</link>
      <description>Oxygen consumed within an integrated gasification-based fertilizer manufacturing process satisfied the condition in Notification No. 145/71-C.E. that the goods be used in the manufacture of fertilizers. The exemption could not be denied merely because final fertilizer output was not shown, where the oxygen entered the plant system, was consumed in the process, and there was no finding of diversion, clandestine clearance, or misuse. The contention that the gas was not marketable oxygen because of lower purity was not accepted as a basis to refuse exemption in these circumstances. The disputed oxygen was therefore treated as eligible for the notified excise exemption.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Mar 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167359</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>