<?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 (12) TMI 112 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389229</link>
    <description>Molasses captively consumed in the manufacture of rectified spirit or ethyl alcohol was treated as eligible for exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE. The Tribunal applied its earlier decision in the assessee&#039;s own case and the cited line of authority to hold that rectified spirit and ethyl alcohol were not to be treated as distinct commodities for this exemption dispute. On that basis, the benefit of exemption could not be denied merely because the final product was said to be non-excisable or outside the central excise levy. The refund denial was therefore not sustained, and the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Dec 2019 11:19:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=596163" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (12) TMI 112 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389229</link>
      <description>Molasses captively consumed in the manufacture of rectified spirit or ethyl alcohol was treated as eligible for exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE. The Tribunal applied its earlier decision in the assessee&#039;s own case and the cited line of authority to hold that rectified spirit and ethyl alcohol were not to be treated as distinct commodities for this exemption dispute. On that basis, the benefit of exemption could not be denied merely because the final product was said to be non-excisable or outside the central excise levy. The refund denial was therefore not sustained, and the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389229</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>