<?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>2000 (3) TMI 248 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93306</link>
    <description>Fabrics containing nylon filament yarn, together with yarn of cellulosic origin, were treated as eligible for concessional duty under Notification No. 4/88 where the notification covered fabrics containing nylon filament yarn and did not make eligibility depend on nylon being the predominant component by weight. The relevant test was whether the fabric contained textile materials other than those specified in the notification and whether the prescribed weight condition for those other materials was met. Accordingly, a low nylon percentage did not by itself disentitle the goods to the benefit, and denial of the concession on that basis was incorrect.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2011 17:21:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130367" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (3) TMI 248 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93306</link>
      <description>Fabrics containing nylon filament yarn, together with yarn of cellulosic origin, were treated as eligible for concessional duty under Notification No. 4/88 where the notification covered fabrics containing nylon filament yarn and did not make eligibility depend on nylon being the predominant component by weight. The relevant test was whether the fabric contained textile materials other than those specified in the notification and whether the prescribed weight condition for those other materials was met. Accordingly, a low nylon percentage did not by itself disentitle the goods to the benefit, and denial of the concession on that basis was incorrect.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93306</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>