<?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 (6) TMI 201 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34437</link>
    <description>Exemption under Notification No. 205/88-C.E. was confined to windmills, specially designed devices running on windmills, and parts consumed within the factory of production for making those specified goods. Iron or steel towers cleared as standalone goods did not qualify because they were not captively used in the same factory to manufacture windmills, nor were windmills cleared from the factory in SKD/CKD or similar form. Their later use by buyers as components of windmills was insufficient. The notification was therefore treated as benefiting manufacture of the final exempt device and only incidentally the captive parts used in that manufacture, so exemption was denied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 30 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=73060" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (6) TMI 201 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34437</link>
      <description>Exemption under Notification No. 205/88-C.E. was confined to windmills, specially designed devices running on windmills, and parts consumed within the factory of production for making those specified goods. Iron or steel towers cleared as standalone goods did not qualify because they were not captively used in the same factory to manufacture windmills, nor were windmills cleared from the factory in SKD/CKD or similar form. Their later use by buyers as components of windmills was insufficient. The notification was therefore treated as benefiting manufacture of the final exempt device and only incidentally the captive parts used in that manufacture, so exemption was denied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34437</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>