<?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>2003 (8) TMI 326 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107897</link>
    <description>For embroidery machinery under the compounded levy scheme, metre length is to be measured by reference to only one roller: the distance between the first and last needle on a single roller or frame, not both rollers. A departmental circular and the amendment to Rule 96Z(1) were treated as clarificatory, so the revised definition applied retrospectively to support that method of computation. On that basis, duty computation had to follow the one-roller measurement and the assessee&#039;s interpretation was accepted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2012 16:04:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144914" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (8) TMI 326 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107897</link>
      <description>For embroidery machinery under the compounded levy scheme, metre length is to be measured by reference to only one roller: the distance between the first and last needle on a single roller or frame, not both rollers. A departmental circular and the amendment to Rule 96Z(1) were treated as clarificatory, so the revised definition applied retrospectively to support that method of computation. On that basis, duty computation had to follow the one-roller measurement and the assessee&#039;s interpretation was accepted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107897</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>