<?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>1989 (8) TMI 79 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42517</link>
    <description>Rice bran oil exemption under Rule 8(1) was held to depend on substantive use in soap manufacture, not on whether pre-treatment occurred inside the same factory. The Court treated rice bran oil and its derivatives, including fatty acid or hydrogenated oil, as eligible where the notifications were intended to encourage use of rice bran oil in soap production. It rejected the narrower view that direct use within the claimant factory was essential, and accepted that existing procedures could verify correlation between the oil and its derivatives. The exemption was therefore available to the manufacturer, and the Tribunal&#039;s contrary view was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2025 12:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=81046" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (8) TMI 79 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42517</link>
      <description>Rice bran oil exemption under Rule 8(1) was held to depend on substantive use in soap manufacture, not on whether pre-treatment occurred inside the same factory. The Court treated rice bran oil and its derivatives, including fatty acid or hydrogenated oil, as eligible where the notifications were intended to encourage use of rice bran oil in soap production. It rejected the narrower view that direct use within the claimant factory was essential, and accepted that existing procedures could verify correlation between the oil and its derivatives. The exemption was therefore available to the manufacturer, and the Tribunal&#039;s contrary view was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42517</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>