<?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>2017 (1) TMI 285 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337205</link>
    <description>Captively used stampers in CD manufacture were treated as capital goods falling under Chapter 85, not as inputs, so they qualified for exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE. The disqualification linked to manufacture of exempt final products was held to apply to inputs, not to captively used capital goods, and the benefit of the notification was not lost merely because the finished CDs were exempt. The denial of exemption was therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2017 09:11:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=454161" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 285 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337205</link>
      <description>Captively used stampers in CD manufacture were treated as capital goods falling under Chapter 85, not as inputs, so they qualified for exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE. The disqualification linked to manufacture of exempt final products was held to apply to inputs, not to captively used capital goods, and the benefit of the notification was not lost merely because the finished CDs were exempt. The denial of exemption was therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337205</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>