<?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>1994 (7) TMI 154 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83379</link>
    <description>Retrospective exemption under Section 11C of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was applied to cycle accessories under Tariff Item 68 for the period from 19 June 1980 to 17 March 1985, and the demand fell within that exempt span. The analysis also noted that, even if a chain cover were treated only as a cycle part, it was covered by Notification No. 234/82-C.E., as amended from time to time. On that basis, the excise demand was held unsustainable and the assessee succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jul 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2011 11:05:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120524" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (7) TMI 154 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83379</link>
      <description>Retrospective exemption under Section 11C of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was applied to cycle accessories under Tariff Item 68 for the period from 19 June 1980 to 17 March 1985, and the demand fell within that exempt span. The analysis also noted that, even if a chain cover were treated only as a cycle part, it was covered by Notification No. 234/82-C.E., as amended from time to time. On that basis, the excise demand was held unsustainable and the assessee succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jul 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83379</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>