<?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 (6) TMI 507 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97546</link>
    <description>An exemption notification applicable to parts can extend to parts of parts used in the manufacture of final goods, and the Tribunal applied that principle to steel balls, outer rings and inner rings used in ball bearings. It rejected the argument that the notification was inapplicable merely because the intermediate goods were not identical to the articles considered in an earlier ruling, and relied on Board circulars supporting exemption for parts of parts. It also held that exemption eligibility cannot be denied solely because the notification was not specifically claimed in the classification list if it is otherwise legally available. The duty demand was set aside and consequential relief followed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 11:59:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134604" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (6) TMI 507 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97546</link>
      <description>An exemption notification applicable to parts can extend to parts of parts used in the manufacture of final goods, and the Tribunal applied that principle to steel balls, outer rings and inner rings used in ball bearings. It rejected the argument that the notification was inapplicable merely because the intermediate goods were not identical to the articles considered in an earlier ruling, and relied on Board circulars supporting exemption for parts of parts. It also held that exemption eligibility cannot be denied solely because the notification was not specifically claimed in the classification list if it is otherwise legally available. The duty demand was set aside and consequential relief followed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97546</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>