<?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 (9) TMI 917 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170522</link>
    <description>Captively consumed MS angles, MS channels and joists used in coal elevator, chamber separator and coal gasifier were held prima facie to fall within Notification No. 67/95-C.E., because they appeared to be used in relation to manufacture of the final product within the factory. On that interim view, the denial of exemption by the lower authorities was considered flawed for pre-deposit purposes, and the appellant established a prima facie case for waiver of the pre-deposit condition. Recovery was stayed pending disposal of the appeal, while the cited Supreme Court ruling was distinguished on the basis that the relevant contention had not been raised there.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2015 17:03:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=386546" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (9) TMI 917 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170522</link>
      <description>Captively consumed MS angles, MS channels and joists used in coal elevator, chamber separator and coal gasifier were held prima facie to fall within Notification No. 67/95-C.E., because they appeared to be used in relation to manufacture of the final product within the factory. On that interim view, the denial of exemption by the lower authorities was considered flawed for pre-deposit purposes, and the appellant established a prima facie case for waiver of the pre-deposit condition. Recovery was stayed pending disposal of the appeal, while the cited Supreme Court ruling was distinguished on the basis that the relevant contention had not been raised there.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170522</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>