<?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 (11) TMI 6 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31363</link>
    <description>Captively consumed ethylene and propylene used as refrigerants in the manufacture of finished products qualified for exemption under Notification No. 217/86 because they were used in or in relation to the manufacture of goods covered by the notification. The inevitable emergence of ethane and methane as by-products during cracking of raw naphtha did not, by itself, defeat the exemption, since those by-products arose as an unavoidable consequence of the process and the same quantity of inputs was still deployed for the exempted manufacturing activity. The exemption was therefore available and the duty demand based on denial of the notification could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Jul 2019 16:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=70010" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (11) TMI 6 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31363</link>
      <description>Captively consumed ethylene and propylene used as refrigerants in the manufacture of finished products qualified for exemption under Notification No. 217/86 because they were used in or in relation to the manufacture of goods covered by the notification. The inevitable emergence of ethane and methane as by-products during cracking of raw naphtha did not, by itself, defeat the exemption, since those by-products arose as an unavoidable consequence of the process and the same quantity of inputs was still deployed for the exempted manufacturing activity. The exemption was therefore available and the duty demand based on denial of the notification could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31363</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>