<?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 (10) TMI 250 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92568</link>
    <description>An exemption notification using tariff language must be construed consistently with the tariff meaning unless the goods are expressly excluded. Because the tariff treated steel as including stainless steel, and the notification did not expressly exclude stainless steel tubes and pipes, the exemption was available to those goods. The omission to name stainless steel separately in the relevant entry did not justify denial of relief. The Revenue&#039;s challenge accordingly failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Nov 2011 15:45:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=129629" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (10) TMI 250 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92568</link>
      <description>An exemption notification using tariff language must be construed consistently with the tariff meaning unless the goods are expressly excluded. Because the tariff treated steel as including stainless steel, and the notification did not expressly exclude stainless steel tubes and pipes, the exemption was available to those goods. The omission to name stainless steel separately in the relevant entry did not justify denial of relief. The Revenue&#039;s challenge accordingly failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92568</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>