<?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 (5) TMI 514 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95645</link>
    <description>A Line Testing Unit was held not to qualify for exemption under Notification No. 73/90 because technical literature and system architecture showed it was an independent unit, not an integral part of the Rural Automatic Exchange. The earlier ratio on the same question was applied, and the exemption claim failed on the footing that a technically separate article does not inherit the exemption available to the exempted system.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:22:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132704" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (5) TMI 514 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95645</link>
      <description>A Line Testing Unit was held not to qualify for exemption under Notification No. 73/90 because technical literature and system architecture showed it was an independent unit, not an integral part of the Rural Automatic Exchange. The earlier ratio on the same question was applied, and the exemption claim failed on the footing that a technically separate article does not inherit the exemption available to the exempted system.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95645</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>