<?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>1989 (12) TMI 187 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80311</link>
    <description>The case before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Calcutta centered on the interpretation of a comma in an exemption notification regarding the thickness criterion for certain goods. The dispute revolved around whether the comma placement affected the application of the criterion to all inputs or specific items like flats. The appellants, facing financial hardship, contested the Additional Collector&#039;s imposition of duties on M.S. Pipes made from strips and skelps exceeding 5 mm in thickness. The tribunal analyzed the correct application of the exemption notification, leading to a decision on stay of recovery and transfer of the case for further review.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Dec 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2011 10:47:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=117457" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (12) TMI 187 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80311</link>
      <description>The case before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Calcutta centered on the interpretation of a comma in an exemption notification regarding the thickness criterion for certain goods. The dispute revolved around whether the comma placement affected the application of the criterion to all inputs or specific items like flats. The appellants, facing financial hardship, contested the Additional Collector&#039;s imposition of duties on M.S. Pipes made from strips and skelps exceeding 5 mm in thickness. The tribunal analyzed the correct application of the exemption notification, leading to a decision on stay of recovery and transfer of the case for further review.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Dec 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80311</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>