<?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 258 - CEGAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92576</link>
    <description>Where terry towelling fabric had already suffered duty under the applicable exemption notification, no further excise duty was payable again at the terry towel stage after cutting, stitching and hemming. The notification treated the towel stage as exempt once duty was discharged at the fabric stage, so a second levy on the finished towels was not sustainable. The demand for additional duty therefore could not survive and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Nov 2011 16:14:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=129637" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (10) TMI 258 - CEGAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92576</link>
      <description>Where terry towelling fabric had already suffered duty under the applicable exemption notification, no further excise duty was payable again at the terry towel stage after cutting, stitching and hemming. The notification treated the towel stage as exempt once duty was discharged at the fabric stage, so a second levy on the finished towels was not sustainable. The demand for additional duty therefore could not survive and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92576</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>