<?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>2025 (8) TMI 491 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776304</link>
    <description>Goods manufactured and consumed within the factory for repair and maintenance of plant and machinery, and for construction of internal roads and fencing facilitating movement of raw materials and plant operations, qualified for captive consumption exemption. The tribunal treated these internal structures and maintenance inputs as integral to manufacture because they supported transportation of materials and the functioning of production units. Their incidental departmental use did not defeat exemption where the dominant use was in or in relation to manufacture. The appellant was therefore entitled to exemption under the notifications, and the demand, interest, and penalty were set aside as unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Aug 2025 05:20:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=841809" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (8) TMI 491 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776304</link>
      <description>Goods manufactured and consumed within the factory for repair and maintenance of plant and machinery, and for construction of internal roads and fencing facilitating movement of raw materials and plant operations, qualified for captive consumption exemption. The tribunal treated these internal structures and maintenance inputs as integral to manufacture because they supported transportation of materials and the functioning of production units. Their incidental departmental use did not defeat exemption where the dominant use was in or in relation to manufacture. The appellant was therefore entitled to exemption under the notifications, and the demand, interest, and penalty were set aside as unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776304</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>