<?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>2001 (12) TMI 299 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100832</link>
    <description>An exemption notification was construed to include waste within the term &quot;synthetic textile material&quot; for classification under Sr. No. 14. Because the yarn was manufactured from synthetic staple waste, the inclusive explanation in the notification governed and the product could not be treated as outside that expression. The yarn was therefore classifiable under Sr. No. 14(a) and not Sr. No. 14(b), and the classification claim based on the narrower reading failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 12:46:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=137882" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (12) TMI 299 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100832</link>
      <description>An exemption notification was construed to include waste within the term &quot;synthetic textile material&quot; for classification under Sr. No. 14. Because the yarn was manufactured from synthetic staple waste, the inclusive explanation in the notification governed and the product could not be treated as outside that expression. The yarn was therefore classifiable under Sr. No. 14(a) and not Sr. No. 14(b), and the classification claim based on the narrower reading failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100832</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>