<?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>2015 (10) TMI 441 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265166</link>
    <description>Vanadium Pentoxide used by a 100% Export Oriented Unit was held to be a catalyst, not a raw material, for conditional exemption under Notification No. 8/97-CE and Notification No. 23/03-CE. The Court noted that a raw material is not every ingredient used in manufacture: the substance here accelerated the chemical reaction, remained unaltered, retained its independent character, was not consumed in the process, and did not form part of the final product. Applying the approach in Ballarpur Industries, the classification depended on the facts, and the catalyst could not be equated with raw material. The concessional benefit was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Jan 2016 11:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=400307" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 441 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265166</link>
      <description>Vanadium Pentoxide used by a 100% Export Oriented Unit was held to be a catalyst, not a raw material, for conditional exemption under Notification No. 8/97-CE and Notification No. 23/03-CE. The Court noted that a raw material is not every ingredient used in manufacture: the substance here accelerated the chemical reaction, remained unaltered, retained its independent character, was not consumed in the process, and did not form part of the final product. Applying the approach in Ballarpur Industries, the classification depended on the facts, and the catalyst could not be equated with raw material. The concessional benefit was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265166</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>