<?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>2009 (9) TMI 460 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76596</link>
    <description>Mineral wool fibre tiles were held classifiable under Chapter Heading 6807.10 for the earlier period and eligible for nil duty, because the goods were manufactured from mineral wool containing more than 25% by weight of blast furnace slag. For the later period, exemption under Notification No. 03/2005-C.E. was allowed on the same basis, since the notification did not require direct use of blast furnace slag in the finished goods. The Tribunal applied a reasonable construction of the exemption and rejected the department&#039;s narrow view that prior processing of the qualifying material in another factory defeated the benefit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=114798" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (9) TMI 460 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76596</link>
      <description>Mineral wool fibre tiles were held classifiable under Chapter Heading 6807.10 for the earlier period and eligible for nil duty, because the goods were manufactured from mineral wool containing more than 25% by weight of blast furnace slag. For the later period, exemption under Notification No. 03/2005-C.E. was allowed on the same basis, since the notification did not require direct use of blast furnace slag in the finished goods. The Tribunal applied a reasonable construction of the exemption and rejected the department&#039;s narrow view that prior processing of the qualifying material in another factory defeated the benefit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76596</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>