<?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>1998 (9) TMI 412 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100568</link>
    <description>The case involved the eligibility of &quot;Laviest&quot; capsules for benefits under Notification 211/69 and Notification 37/85 regarding the Central Excise Tariff. The Assistant Collector initially denied the benefits, but the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) reversed this decision. The Member (Judicial) upheld the eligibility of the capsules for the benefits under the notifications, while the Vice President disagreed, stating that the product did not meet the criteria for a &quot;culture of micro-organisms&quot; as intended by the notifications. The final outcome was undecided, pending further adjudication by a larger bench due to the divided opinions of the Tribunal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 11:17:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=137619" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (9) TMI 412 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100568</link>
      <description>The case involved the eligibility of &quot;Laviest&quot; capsules for benefits under Notification 211/69 and Notification 37/85 regarding the Central Excise Tariff. The Assistant Collector initially denied the benefits, but the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) reversed this decision. The Member (Judicial) upheld the eligibility of the capsules for the benefits under the notifications, while the Vice President disagreed, stating that the product did not meet the criteria for a &quot;culture of micro-organisms&quot; as intended by the notifications. The final outcome was undecided, pending further adjudication by a larger bench due to the divided opinions of the Tribunal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100568</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>