<?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 (4) TMI 172 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30875</link>
    <description>Samples drawn and retained within the factory for laboratory testing and quality control were treated as exempt under Notification No. 171/70-C.E. because they were used only for in-house testing, were not removed beyond the factory gate, and were supported by proper records. The alleged issue of distinct packing and marking was not shown to be established by rebuttal and, in any event, was not material where the exempted use was satisfied. Earlier Tribunal reasoning supporting exemption in similar circumstances was followed, so the demand and penalty were not sustainable and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=69528" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (4) TMI 172 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30875</link>
      <description>Samples drawn and retained within the factory for laboratory testing and quality control were treated as exempt under Notification No. 171/70-C.E. because they were used only for in-house testing, were not removed beyond the factory gate, and were supported by proper records. The alleged issue of distinct packing and marking was not shown to be established by rebuttal and, in any event, was not material where the exempted use was satisfied. Earlier Tribunal reasoning supporting exemption in similar circumstances was followed, so the demand and penalty were not sustainable and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30875</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>