<?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 (4) TMI 166 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84275</link>
    <description>Yarn containing 85.6% glass fibre and coated with organic compound was held not to qualify as yarn spun wholly out of glass fibres for exemption under Notification No. 52/86-C.E. The expression &quot;wholly&quot; was construed strictly to mean complete composition of glass fibres, not merely predominant or main composition, and the notification also excluded continuous filament yarn. On that basis, the refund claim failed and the rejection of exemption was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Jul 2011 18:10:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121419" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (4) TMI 166 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84275</link>
      <description>Yarn containing 85.6% glass fibre and coated with organic compound was held not to qualify as yarn spun wholly out of glass fibres for exemption under Notification No. 52/86-C.E. The expression &quot;wholly&quot; was construed strictly to mean complete composition of glass fibres, not merely predominant or main composition, and the notification also excluded continuous filament yarn. On that basis, the refund claim failed and the rejection of exemption was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84275</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>