<?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>1999 (1) TMI 175 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91329</link>
    <description>Exemption for welded stainless steel tubes under Notification No. 202/88 was discussed in light of a duty demand raised on the basis that the exemption had been wrongly availed. The Tribunal noted that, in similar matters, the Department later ed that the exemption was available, and found that the matter should be reconsidered by the authority that issued the impugned order. The issue was therefore sent back for fresh decision by the concerned Commissioner.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Oct 2011 14:12:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=128391" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (1) TMI 175 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91329</link>
      <description>Exemption for welded stainless steel tubes under Notification No. 202/88 was discussed in light of a duty demand raised on the basis that the exemption had been wrongly availed. The Tribunal noted that, in similar matters, the Department later ed that the exemption was available, and found that the matter should be reconsidered by the authority that issued the impugned order. The issue was therefore sent back for fresh decision by the concerned Commissioner.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91329</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>