<?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>2008 (3) TMI 208 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30607</link>
    <description>Notification No. 13/2000-CE exempts specified Chapter 72 and 73 goods manufactured in and cleared from an integrated steel plant, and the substantive definition is satisfied where the manufacturing chain begins from iron ore and operates within the same premises. Separate sponge iron and billet units were treated as one integrated plant because they stood within a common boundary wall, shared entry and exit, workforce, and facilities, and the sponge iron was captively consumed for billet manufacture. Separate central excise registrations did not, by themselves, negate this characterisation. The earlier departmental treatment of the units as an integrated steel plant also supported exemption eligibility, making the denial of exemption and the consequential duty, interest, and penalty unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=69262" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (3) TMI 208 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30607</link>
      <description>Notification No. 13/2000-CE exempts specified Chapter 72 and 73 goods manufactured in and cleared from an integrated steel plant, and the substantive definition is satisfied where the manufacturing chain begins from iron ore and operates within the same premises. Separate sponge iron and billet units were treated as one integrated plant because they stood within a common boundary wall, shared entry and exit, workforce, and facilities, and the sponge iron was captively consumed for billet manufacture. Separate central excise registrations did not, by themselves, negate this characterisation. The earlier departmental treatment of the units as an integrated steel plant also supported exemption eligibility, making the denial of exemption and the consequential duty, interest, and penalty unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30607</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>