<?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>2006 (7) TMI 59 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=914</link>
    <description>An undefined exemption term in Notification No. 88/88-C.E. was interpreted in its ordinary sense, so a proprietary concern recognised by the Khadi and Village Industries Board and operating in a rural area qualified as an &quot;institution&quot; despite its commercial character. The notification did not require the unit to be charitable or non-commercial, and the rural industrial promotion object supported exemption. For Notification No. 28/64-C.E., exemption could not be denied without proof that power or steam was used for heating in soap manufacture; as no such evidence was shown, the benefit remained available. The impugned order was therefore unsustainable and consequential relief followed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40343" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (7) TMI 59 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=914</link>
      <description>An undefined exemption term in Notification No. 88/88-C.E. was interpreted in its ordinary sense, so a proprietary concern recognised by the Khadi and Village Industries Board and operating in a rural area qualified as an &quot;institution&quot; despite its commercial character. The notification did not require the unit to be charitable or non-commercial, and the rural industrial promotion object supported exemption. For Notification No. 28/64-C.E., exemption could not be denied without proof that power or steam was used for heating in soap manufacture; as no such evidence was shown, the benefit remained available. The impugned order was therefore unsustainable and consequential relief followed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=914</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>