<?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>2005 (5) TMI 210 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54488</link>
    <description>Notification No. 126/94-C.E. was construed broadly to cover goods required for production or manufacture in an export-processing setup, including use &quot;in connection with&quot; such activity. HSD oil used for fork-lifts was treated as eligible because material handling equipment within the factory was connected to manufacturing operations. HSD oil used in the heat treatment line, dye preheating system and paint line was also covered because those processes formed part of the manufacturing activity. The fact that approval had been taken for captive generating sets did not defeat the exemption where the fuel was duly accounted for and used only for the permitted purposes, so the duty demand and penalty were unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Oct 2010 12:57:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92965" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (5) TMI 210 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54488</link>
      <description>Notification No. 126/94-C.E. was construed broadly to cover goods required for production or manufacture in an export-processing setup, including use &quot;in connection with&quot; such activity. HSD oil used for fork-lifts was treated as eligible because material handling equipment within the factory was connected to manufacturing operations. HSD oil used in the heat treatment line, dye preheating system and paint line was also covered because those processes formed part of the manufacturing activity. The fact that approval had been taken for captive generating sets did not defeat the exemption where the fuel was duly accounted for and used only for the permitted purposes, so the duty demand and penalty were unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54488</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>