<?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>2003 (11) TMI 68 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46698</link>
    <description>Notification No. 217/86-C.E. was interpreted to grant exemption for inputs manufactured and used within the same factory in or in relation to the manufacture of final products. The exclusion for machines, machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus, tools or appliances was read narrowly, applying only to items directly and immediately used in actual production or processing, not to every article used in the manufacturing process. Gauges, templates and similar captive-use items were therefore outside the exclusion and remained exempt. The Revenue was also regarded as bound by its earlier acceptance of the same interpretation in a prior Tribunal matter and could not, without explanation, take a contrary stand for a later period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2025 19:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=85218" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (11) TMI 68 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46698</link>
      <description>Notification No. 217/86-C.E. was interpreted to grant exemption for inputs manufactured and used within the same factory in or in relation to the manufacture of final products. The exclusion for machines, machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus, tools or appliances was read narrowly, applying only to items directly and immediately used in actual production or processing, not to every article used in the manufacturing process. Gauges, templates and similar captive-use items were therefore outside the exclusion and remained exempt. The Revenue was also regarded as bound by its earlier acceptance of the same interpretation in a prior Tribunal matter and could not, without explanation, take a contrary stand for a later period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46698</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>