<?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>1991 (2) TMI 304 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94588</link>
    <description>Exemption for vulcanised micro cellular rubber sheets used captively to manufacture footwear soles and heels extends under the amended notification to the described rubber products in plate, sheet and strip form, whether vulcanised or not. Replacing the former tariff-item reference with Heading 40.05 did not restrict the exemption solely to goods strictly classifiable under that heading; such a reading would improperly rewrite the notification&#039;s retained product description. As the goods were exempt, no duty liability survived and suppression could not support an extended limitation demand. The duty demand was therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2011 12:18:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131647" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (2) TMI 304 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94588</link>
      <description>Exemption for vulcanised micro cellular rubber sheets used captively to manufacture footwear soles and heels extends under the amended notification to the described rubber products in plate, sheet and strip form, whether vulcanised or not. Replacing the former tariff-item reference with Heading 40.05 did not restrict the exemption solely to goods strictly classifiable under that heading; such a reading would improperly rewrite the notification&#039;s retained product description. As the goods were exempt, no duty liability survived and suppression could not support an extended limitation demand. The duty demand was therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94588</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>