<?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>1995 (2) TMI 209 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84117</link>
    <description>Textile fabrics impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics were examined for excise exemption where the base fabric was knitted cotton and the notifications referred to Chapter 52 base fabrics. The construction adopted was that a harmonious reading of the tariff and exemption notifications allowed the residuary Heading 59.03 entry to cover goods not fitting the specific Chapter 52-linked categories, rather than denying exemption altogether. Because the residuary exemption issue had not been properly considered earlier, the adjudication orders were set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision with a proper hearing and observance of natural justice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2011 17:59:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121261" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (2) TMI 209 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84117</link>
      <description>Textile fabrics impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics were examined for excise exemption where the base fabric was knitted cotton and the notifications referred to Chapter 52 base fabrics. The construction adopted was that a harmonious reading of the tariff and exemption notifications allowed the residuary Heading 59.03 entry to cover goods not fitting the specific Chapter 52-linked categories, rather than denying exemption altogether. Because the residuary exemption issue had not been properly considered earlier, the adjudication orders were set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision with a proper hearing and observance of natural justice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84117</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>