<?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 580 - CEGAT,  KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96977</link>
    <description>Ropes made from sisal and manila yarn qualified for exemption under Notification No. 62/87-C.E. because the yarn had been captively used under Notification No. 49/90. Nil duty under a valid exemption notification was treated as sufficient discharge of the duty condition for the later exemption, even though no actual duty was paid on the yarn. The benefit of the rope exemption was therefore available, and the adverse view on this issue was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2012 15:03:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134035" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (5) TMI 580 - CEGAT,  KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96977</link>
      <description>Ropes made from sisal and manila yarn qualified for exemption under Notification No. 62/87-C.E. because the yarn had been captively used under Notification No. 49/90. Nil duty under a valid exemption notification was treated as sufficient discharge of the duty condition for the later exemption, even though no actual duty was paid on the yarn. The benefit of the rope exemption was therefore available, and the adverse view on this issue was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96977</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>