<?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 (10) TMI 160 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85846</link>
    <description>For purposes of Notification No. 220/78, SWG for wire is to be computed on the basis of the bare copper conductor and not by including insulation. Insulation is not a proper component of the diameter calculation because its thickness varies with the extent and material of insulation used. The benefit under the notification therefore depends on the diameter of the bare wire alone, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge to the Collector (Appeals)&#039;s view failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Aug 2011 13:55:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122913" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (10) TMI 160 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85846</link>
      <description>For purposes of Notification No. 220/78, SWG for wire is to be computed on the basis of the bare copper conductor and not by including insulation. Insulation is not a proper component of the diameter calculation because its thickness varies with the extent and material of insulation used. The benefit under the notification therefore depends on the diameter of the bare wire alone, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge to the Collector (Appeals)&#039;s view failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85846</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>