<?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 (5) TMI 141 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50291</link>
    <description>Exemption under Notification No. 230/86-C.E. was available where power was used only to empty tankers, transfer solvents to storage tanks, and handle common raw materials, while the actual manufacture of thinners proceeded without power. The use of power for storage and internal movement of materials not exclusively earmarked for the exempt product did not amount to manufacture with the aid of power, so denial of exemption was unsustainable. The demand was also time-barred because the clearances were made under approved classification lists, supported by departmental verification and correspondence, and the record did not justify extended limitation for suppression. The duty demand and penalty were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Aug 2010 09:36:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88771" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (5) TMI 141 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50291</link>
      <description>Exemption under Notification No. 230/86-C.E. was available where power was used only to empty tankers, transfer solvents to storage tanks, and handle common raw materials, while the actual manufacture of thinners proceeded without power. The use of power for storage and internal movement of materials not exclusively earmarked for the exempt product did not amount to manufacture with the aid of power, so denial of exemption was unsustainable. The demand was also time-barred because the clearances were made under approved classification lists, supported by departmental verification and correspondence, and the record did not justify extended limitation for suppression. The duty demand and penalty were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50291</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>