<?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 (11) TMI 419 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94474</link>
    <description>Scientific and cooling apparatus were treated as eligible for exemption under Notification No. 155/86 because the Tribunal had already held the same goods entitled to that benefit in the assessee&#039;s own earlier matter. The classification dispute was therefore resolved by following the prior decision on identical goods, and the same view was applied here. On that basis, the notification benefit was upheld and the appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2011 17:09:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131534" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (11) TMI 419 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94474</link>
      <description>Scientific and cooling apparatus were treated as eligible for exemption under Notification No. 155/86 because the Tribunal had already held the same goods entitled to that benefit in the assessee&#039;s own earlier matter. The classification dispute was therefore resolved by following the prior decision on identical goods, and the same view was applied here. On that basis, the notification benefit was upheld and the appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94474</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>