<?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 (2) TMI 140 - CEGAT, COURT NO. III, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48914</link>
    <description>Notification No. 120/84 was examined for exemption coverage of products such as cabols, Univols, Ecols and Osmex-140, with the central question being whether they fell within &quot;blended or compounded lubricating oils and greases&quot; and were ordinarily used as lubricants. The appellant relied on straight blending of mineral oils, a flash point above 94 C, and commercial use as finished lubricants to support exemption. The Tribunal treated an earlier controversy as irrelevant, held that eligibility depended on the notification&#039;s definition and the evidence on ordinary use, and remitted the matter to the Division Bench for findings on the disputed facts rather than deciding the Larger Bench reference.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Aug 2010 12:09:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87394" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (2) TMI 140 - CEGAT, COURT NO. III, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48914</link>
      <description>Notification No. 120/84 was examined for exemption coverage of products such as cabols, Univols, Ecols and Osmex-140, with the central question being whether they fell within &quot;blended or compounded lubricating oils and greases&quot; and were ordinarily used as lubricants. The appellant relied on straight blending of mineral oils, a flash point above 94 C, and commercial use as finished lubricants to support exemption. The Tribunal treated an earlier controversy as irrelevant, held that eligibility depended on the notification&#039;s definition and the evidence on ordinary use, and remitted the matter to the Division Bench for findings on the disputed facts rather than deciding the Larger Bench reference.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48914</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>