<?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>1992 (7) TMI 189 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81956</link>
    <description>Exemption under the relevant notification applied to processed cotton cloth manufactured in the specified exempted powerloom category, and the benefit was not conditioned on the claimant&#039;s ownership of the looms. The notification, read with the departmental clarification and contemporaneous executive note, showed that the exemption attached to the goods and to production in powerloom factories with fewer than five powerlooms and no roller locker machines. On that construction, cloth produced on exempted powerlooms and later processed with the aid of power did not attract additional excise duty or handloom cess, and the demand could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2011 18:51:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=119101" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (7) TMI 189 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81956</link>
      <description>Exemption under the relevant notification applied to processed cotton cloth manufactured in the specified exempted powerloom category, and the benefit was not conditioned on the claimant&#039;s ownership of the looms. The notification, read with the departmental clarification and contemporaneous executive note, showed that the exemption attached to the goods and to production in powerloom factories with fewer than five powerlooms and no roller locker machines. On that construction, cloth produced on exempted powerlooms and later processed with the aid of power did not attract additional excise duty or handloom cess, and the demand could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81956</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>