<?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>1993 (2) TMI 116 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI-LB</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48711</link>
    <description>Skimmed milk powder was held outside the exemption where it was regenerated into liquid milk only as an intermediate step in making other products such as Horlicks and Boost. The notification granted relief only when the powder was used for regeneration of liquid milk as such, whether in the same factory or elsewhere on proof of intended use and compliance with Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. On a plain reading, that wording did not extend the exemption to downstream manufacture of other products. The construction was supported by the Gujarat High Court view, while the contrary Andhra Pradesh decision involved a different factual and legal setting.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 May 2025 12:55:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87191" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (2) TMI 116 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI-LB</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48711</link>
      <description>Skimmed milk powder was held outside the exemption where it was regenerated into liquid milk only as an intermediate step in making other products such as Horlicks and Boost. The notification granted relief only when the powder was used for regeneration of liquid milk as such, whether in the same factory or elsewhere on proof of intended use and compliance with Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. On a plain reading, that wording did not extend the exemption to downstream manufacture of other products. The construction was supported by the Gujarat High Court view, while the contrary Andhra Pradesh decision involved a different factual and legal setting.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48711</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>