<?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>2019 (1) TMI 1164 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373999</link>
    <description>Textile exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-CE was available where duty-paid tow was procured from outside and converted into tops for captive use, because the expression &quot;staple fibres&quot; was treated as covering filament tow used for manufacture of tops and the notification&#039;s non-availment of credit condition was satisfied. The intermediate polyester tops were also eligible for exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE because they were not cleared as such, were wholly consumed in the manufacture of final products, and the exclusion clause did not apply. Reversal of credit attributable to exempt clearances before removal, followed by the prescribed procedure, was held to satisfy Rule 6 compliance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2019 07:21:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=554605" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (1) TMI 1164 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373999</link>
      <description>Textile exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-CE was available where duty-paid tow was procured from outside and converted into tops for captive use, because the expression &quot;staple fibres&quot; was treated as covering filament tow used for manufacture of tops and the notification&#039;s non-availment of credit condition was satisfied. The intermediate polyester tops were also eligible for exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE because they were not cleared as such, were wholly consumed in the manufacture of final products, and the exclusion clause did not apply. Reversal of credit attributable to exempt clearances before removal, followed by the prescribed procedure, was held to satisfy Rule 6 compliance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373999</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>