<?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 (11) TMI 1248 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351369</link>
    <description>Captively consumed processed fabrics used to manufacture knitted garments were treated as eligible for exemption under Notification No. 67/1995-CE, even though the final garments were cleared under SSI exemption. The operative question was whether the proviso to the notification, read with clause (vi) and the Rule 6 obligation under the Cenvat Credit Rules, barred exemption for intermediate goods merely because the final products were exempt. On the facts found comparable to the Supreme Court&#039;s captive-consumption ruling on clinker and exempt cement, the proviso did not defeat the benefit where the prescribed obligation was satisfied, and the earlier Tribunal ruling relied on by the Revenue was distinguished. The duty demand was therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Nov 2017 06:24:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=497462" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (11) TMI 1248 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351369</link>
      <description>Captively consumed processed fabrics used to manufacture knitted garments were treated as eligible for exemption under Notification No. 67/1995-CE, even though the final garments were cleared under SSI exemption. The operative question was whether the proviso to the notification, read with clause (vi) and the Rule 6 obligation under the Cenvat Credit Rules, barred exemption for intermediate goods merely because the final products were exempt. On the facts found comparable to the Supreme Court&#039;s captive-consumption ruling on clinker and exempt cement, the proviso did not defeat the benefit where the prescribed obligation was satisfied, and the earlier Tribunal ruling relied on by the Revenue was distinguished. The duty demand was therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351369</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>