<?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>1998 (5) TMI 138 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89066</link>
    <description>Capacity-based exemption under Notification No. 73/90 applied to Digital Automatic Exchanges DATE-36 because the supplied exchanges had a 36-port capacity, well below the notified ceiling of Rural Automatic Exchanges up to 512 ports. In the absence of material showing that a 36-port exchange fell outside the notified description, denial of the exemption was unjustified. The differential duty demand was therefore not sustainable, and the exemption benefit was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 May 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Sep 2011 11:50:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=126129" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (5) TMI 138 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89066</link>
      <description>Capacity-based exemption under Notification No. 73/90 applied to Digital Automatic Exchanges DATE-36 because the supplied exchanges had a 36-port capacity, well below the notified ceiling of Rural Automatic Exchanges up to 512 ports. In the absence of material showing that a 36-port exchange fell outside the notified description, denial of the exemption was unjustified. The differential duty demand was therefore not sustainable, and the exemption benefit was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 May 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89066</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>