<?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 (3) TMI 545 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95599</link>
    <description>Centrifuges classifiable under sub-heading 8421.00 were held to qualify for exemption under Notification No. 69/90-C.E. because the notification expressly covered goods under that heading, and denial of the benefit was inconsistent with its plain terms. Baths other than cryostat under heading 8419.00 were also held eligible for exemption under Notification No. 155/86, as they were cleared with a cooling system but without condensors, compressors, or air-conditioning devices, and a hypothetical future fitment could not justify exclusion. The adverse findings on both items were set aside, and the assessee succeeded on both exemption claims.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2011 16:47:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132658" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (3) TMI 545 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95599</link>
      <description>Centrifuges classifiable under sub-heading 8421.00 were held to qualify for exemption under Notification No. 69/90-C.E. because the notification expressly covered goods under that heading, and denial of the benefit was inconsistent with its plain terms. Baths other than cryostat under heading 8419.00 were also held eligible for exemption under Notification No. 155/86, as they were cleared with a cooling system but without condensors, compressors, or air-conditioning devices, and a hypothetical future fitment could not justify exclusion. The adverse findings on both items were set aside, and the assessee succeeded on both exemption claims.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95599</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>