https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47324 Exemption under Notification No. 217/86-C.E. could not be denied where the intermediate product was undisputedly used as an input in the manufacture of protective covers and tarpaulins. The Court treated the substantive condition of input use as decisive and held that omission to describe the product in the classification list or declaration did not defeat the benefit. It also held that adopting Modvat credit for some clearances, while using a different duty route for others, did not by itself extinguish entitlement to the notification. The denial of exemption was therefore unsustainable, and the Tribunal's grant of benefit was left undisturbed. en-us Tue, 19 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Apr 2014 12:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47324 Exemption under Notification No. 217/86-C.E. could not be denied where the intermediate product was undisputedly used as an input in the manufacture of protective covers and tarpaulins. The Court treated the substantive condition of input use as decisive and held that omission to describe the product in the classification list or declaration did not defeat the benefit. It also held that adopting Modvat credit for some clearances, while using a different duty route for others, did not by itself extinguish entitlement to the notification. The denial of exemption was therefore unsustainable, and the Tribunal's grant of benefit was left undisturbed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 19 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47324