<?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>2016 (4) TMI 443 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326329</link>
    <description>Char/dolochar emerging in the manufacture of sponge iron and used captively for electricity generation was held eligible for exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE on the facts of the unit&#039;s power system. The Tribunal found that generation was not based solely on char/dolochar, because two boilers operated on waste heat recovery from sponge iron kiln gases and only one boiler used solid fuels such as coal and char/dolochar to produce steam. The demand to deny exemption was therefore untenable. The Tribunal also noted that an earlier decision in the respondent&#039;s own case had treated char/dolochar as not liable to excise duty, following the Supreme Court ruling relied on by the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Apr 2016 18:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=423576" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (4) TMI 443 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326329</link>
      <description>Char/dolochar emerging in the manufacture of sponge iron and used captively for electricity generation was held eligible for exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE on the facts of the unit&#039;s power system. The Tribunal found that generation was not based solely on char/dolochar, because two boilers operated on waste heat recovery from sponge iron kiln gases and only one boiler used solid fuels such as coal and char/dolochar to produce steam. The demand to deny exemption was therefore untenable. The Tribunal also noted that an earlier decision in the respondent&#039;s own case had treated char/dolochar as not liable to excise duty, following the Supreme Court ruling relied on by the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326329</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>