<?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 (10) TMI 154 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54711</link>
    <description>Semi-finished ophthalmic blanks that require further grinding and polishing before becoming lenses are treated as a distinct excisable commodity when the product emerging from processing is not yet a finished lens. The discussion states that such goods fall under Chapter Heading 90.01 as other optically worked optical elements. Exemption under Notification No. 79/90 was unavailable because it covered finished lenses, not ophthalmic blanks, and captive consumption exemption under Notification No. 217/86 was also denied where the blanks were used in making exempt lenses. The commentary therefore identifies exemption coverage as dependent on the final character of the goods, not merely their use in manufacture.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Oct 2010 16:18:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=93188" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (10) TMI 154 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54711</link>
      <description>Semi-finished ophthalmic blanks that require further grinding and polishing before becoming lenses are treated as a distinct excisable commodity when the product emerging from processing is not yet a finished lens. The discussion states that such goods fall under Chapter Heading 90.01 as other optically worked optical elements. Exemption under Notification No. 79/90 was unavailable because it covered finished lenses, not ophthalmic blanks, and captive consumption exemption under Notification No. 217/86 was also denied where the blanks were used in making exempt lenses. The commentary therefore identifies exemption coverage as dependent on the final character of the goods, not merely their use in manufacture.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54711</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>