<?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 (9) TMI 315 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94043</link>
    <description>Cold twisted bars manufactured during the relevant period were treated as covered by the exemption notifications, as the Tribunal followed its earlier decisions holding that twisted bars and rods fell within Notification No. 202/88-C.E., as amended by Notification No. 170/89-C.E. The issue was therefore not reopened for fresh examination, and the duty demand on such goods could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2011 16:31:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131103" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (9) TMI 315 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94043</link>
      <description>Cold twisted bars manufactured during the relevant period were treated as covered by the exemption notifications, as the Tribunal followed its earlier decisions holding that twisted bars and rods fell within Notification No. 202/88-C.E., as amended by Notification No. 170/89-C.E. The issue was therefore not reopened for fresh examination, and the duty demand on such goods could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94043</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>