<?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>2002 (10) TMI 102 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46378</link>
    <description>Citric acid qualified for central excise exemption to the extent it was actually used as an intermediate in the manufacture of drugs, medicines and pharmaceuticals. The decisive test was the specific qualifying use, not its general or predominant commercial use in other goods. The Tribunal&#039;s approach, treating exemption as available only for such identified use and remanding for verification of the extent of use by the Assistant Collector, was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Jul 2010 13:53:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84904" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (10) TMI 102 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46378</link>
      <description>Citric acid qualified for central excise exemption to the extent it was actually used as an intermediate in the manufacture of drugs, medicines and pharmaceuticals. The decisive test was the specific qualifying use, not its general or predominant commercial use in other goods. The Tribunal&#039;s approach, treating exemption as available only for such identified use and remanding for verification of the extent of use by the Assistant Collector, was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46378</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>