<?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>1987 (4) TMI 323 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74697</link>
    <description>Cotton chindies were held not liable to handloom cess for the relevant period because the Tribunal applied its earlier view that the exemption was not limited to chindies made of man-made fibres. On that basis, the cited notifications were treated as covering cotton chindies as well, and the exemption was held applicable. The appeals were dismissed and the Appellate Collector&#039;s orders were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Jun 2011 14:47:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=112976" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (4) TMI 323 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74697</link>
      <description>Cotton chindies were held not liable to handloom cess for the relevant period because the Tribunal applied its earlier view that the exemption was not limited to chindies made of man-made fibres. On that basis, the cited notifications were treated as covering cotton chindies as well, and the exemption was held applicable. The appeals were dismissed and the Appellate Collector&#039;s orders were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74697</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>