<?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>2001 (2) TMI 364 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95484</link>
    <description>Where a tariff exemption notification covered medical examination rubber gloves and did not impose any specific end-use condition, latex examination gloves described on packages and clearance documents could be treated in common parlance as medical examination gloves. In the absence of material showing that the goods were incapable of medical use, the description was accepted for concessional assessment under Notification No. 5/98-C.E. dated 2-6-1998. The stated reasoning also notes that the appellate authority&#039;s analysis was properly made and there was no basis to disturb it, so the denial of concessional duty was not sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Dec 2011 17:39:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132543" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (2) TMI 364 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95484</link>
      <description>Where a tariff exemption notification covered medical examination rubber gloves and did not impose any specific end-use condition, latex examination gloves described on packages and clearance documents could be treated in common parlance as medical examination gloves. In the absence of material showing that the goods were incapable of medical use, the description was accepted for concessional assessment under Notification No. 5/98-C.E. dated 2-6-1998. The stated reasoning also notes that the appellate authority&#039;s analysis was properly made and there was no basis to disturb it, so the denial of concessional duty was not sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95484</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>