<?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>1996 (9) TMI 241 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85772</link>
    <description>Soapstone was treated as eligible for exemption under Notification No. 23/55 as talc, because the Tribunal found the earlier decision in Oriental Talc Products directly applicable. The only substantive issue was whether soapstone could be regarded as talc for the notification, and the Tribunal saw no reason to depart from the prior view extending the same benefit. On that basis, the appellate order granting the exemption was upheld and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Aug 2011 11:15:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122839" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (9) TMI 241 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85772</link>
      <description>Soapstone was treated as eligible for exemption under Notification No. 23/55 as talc, because the Tribunal found the earlier decision in Oriental Talc Products directly applicable. The only substantive issue was whether soapstone could be regarded as talc for the notification, and the Tribunal saw no reason to depart from the prior view extending the same benefit. On that basis, the appellate order granting the exemption was upheld and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85772</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>