<?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 (12) TMI 317 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95246</link>
    <description>Roof loid and scrap felt were treated as eligible for exemption under Notification No. 53/65-C.E. dated 20-3-1965, because the adjudicating and appellate authorities had consistently accepted that view. The Tribunal also relied on an earlier decision covering comparable goods under the same notification, which supported the exemption treatment. On that basis, the departmental challenge did not succeed and the exemption position was maintained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2011 11:46:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132305" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (12) TMI 317 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95246</link>
      <description>Roof loid and scrap felt were treated as eligible for exemption under Notification No. 53/65-C.E. dated 20-3-1965, because the adjudicating and appellate authorities had consistently accepted that view. The Tribunal also relied on an earlier decision covering comparable goods under the same notification, which supported the exemption treatment. On that basis, the departmental challenge did not succeed and the exemption position was maintained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95246</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>