<?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>1990 (4) TMI 130 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80535</link>
    <description>Cropping or shearing of knitted acrylic fabrics was construed broadly under the textile exemption notification, covering not only edge trimming but also removal of loose ends from the fabric surface. On that reading, the process did not create a dutiable manufactured product outside the exemption, so no duty was payable. The surrounding seizure and custody circumstances were also treated as supporting the appellants&#039; case that the goods were not seized from their factory, although that point was only corroborative. The duty demand and connected penalty were therefore unsustainable because the impugned process fell within the applicable exemption.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2011 15:16:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=117681" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (4) TMI 130 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80535</link>
      <description>Cropping or shearing of knitted acrylic fabrics was construed broadly under the textile exemption notification, covering not only edge trimming but also removal of loose ends from the fabric surface. On that reading, the process did not create a dutiable manufactured product outside the exemption, so no duty was payable. The surrounding seizure and custody circumstances were also treated as supporting the appellants&#039; case that the goods were not seized from their factory, although that point was only corroborative. The duty demand and connected penalty were therefore unsustainable because the impugned process fell within the applicable exemption.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80535</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>