https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352339 The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI held that the term "intended for storage of agricultural produce" under Notification No. 6/2002-CE did not require exclusive storage of agricultural produce only. As long as the goods were used for the intended purpose of storing agricultural produce, the notification benefit could not be denied, even if non-agricultural produce was stored incidentally. The Tribunal emphasized that the notification did not restrict the storage of other produce requiring cold storage alongside agricultural produce. Consequently, the appellant's use of the refrigeration equipment for storing agricultural produce was deemed compliant, leading to the appeal being allowed and the impugned order set aside. en-us Mon, 27 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Feb 2018 13:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352339 The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI held that the term "intended for storage of agricultural produce" under Notification No. 6/2002-CE did not require exclusive storage of agricultural produce only. As long as the goods were used for the intended purpose of storing agricultural produce, the notification benefit could not be denied, even if non-agricultural produce was stored incidentally. The Tribunal emphasized that the notification did not restrict the storage of other produce requiring cold storage alongside agricultural produce. Consequently, the appellant's use of the refrigeration equipment for storing agricultural produce was deemed compliant, leading to the appeal being allowed and the impugned order set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 27 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352339