<?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 (10) TMI 139 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89408</link>
    <description>Incomplete pumps were considered for exemption under Notification No. 155/86 where the tariff entry and the notification used similar language. The same meaning was applied to the expression in both provisions, following the earlier decision relied on, and interpretative rules were not used to enlarge the exemption beyond its plain scope. On that basis, the item was treated consistently with the tariff classification and the notification, and the exemption claim was accepted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Oct 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:31:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=126470" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (10) TMI 139 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89408</link>
      <description>Incomplete pumps were considered for exemption under Notification No. 155/86 where the tariff entry and the notification used similar language. The same meaning was applied to the expression in both provisions, following the earlier decision relied on, and interpretative rules were not used to enlarge the exemption beyond its plain scope. On that basis, the item was treated consistently with the tariff classification and the notification, and the exemption claim was accepted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Oct 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89408</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>