<?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 (2) TMI 363 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91603</link>
    <description>A reference to the High Court was refused because the Tribunal&#039;s conclusion rested on a pure finding of fact that the goods were used as a medium of transfer and were not apparatus or appliances for processing goods. Since the Department&#039;s own reference application accepted that factual position, the dispute did not raise any debatable question of law. The proposed questions were therefore held not maintainable for reference, and the factual finding remained undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:38:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=128665" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (2) TMI 363 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91603</link>
      <description>A reference to the High Court was refused because the Tribunal&#039;s conclusion rested on a pure finding of fact that the goods were used as a medium of transfer and were not apparatus or appliances for processing goods. Since the Department&#039;s own reference application accepted that factual position, the dispute did not raise any debatable question of law. The proposed questions were therefore held not maintainable for reference, and the factual finding remained undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91603</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>