<?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>2000 (4) TMI 55 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48787</link>
    <description>The dominant issue was the interpretation of Notification No. 281/86-C.E. granting excise exemption to goods &quot;manufactured in a workshop within a factory&quot; for repair/maintenance. The tribunal held that &quot;workshop&quot; cannot be treated as co-terminus with &quot;factory&quot; under the Act&#039;s extended definition, as doing so would render the words &quot;in a workshop&quot; otiose and impermissibly expand the exemption. Applying ordinary meaning and strict construction of exemption notifications, it ruled the benefit is confined to goods separately produced in a distinct workshop within the factory and excludes commercial/mass production even if used for repair/maintenance. As the assessees neither pleaded nor proved manufacture in any such workshop, exemption was denied and the appeals were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 04 Jan 2026 11:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87267" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (4) TMI 55 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48787</link>
      <description>The dominant issue was the interpretation of Notification No. 281/86-C.E. granting excise exemption to goods &quot;manufactured in a workshop within a factory&quot; for repair/maintenance. The tribunal held that &quot;workshop&quot; cannot be treated as co-terminus with &quot;factory&quot; under the Act&#039;s extended definition, as doing so would render the words &quot;in a workshop&quot; otiose and impermissibly expand the exemption. Applying ordinary meaning and strict construction of exemption notifications, it ruled the benefit is confined to goods separately produced in a distinct workshop within the factory and excludes commercial/mass production even if used for repair/maintenance. As the assessees neither pleaded nor proved manufacture in any such workshop, exemption was denied and the appeals were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48787</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>