<?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 (10) TMI 504 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110735</link>
    <description>Laminated jute products were held to fall within Notification No. 53/65 because the exemption covered laminated jute products without prescribing any specific manufacturing process. The Tribunal found no basis to distinguish thermosetting lamination from other methods of lamination, and it relied on an earlier ruling treating bitumen-bonded laminated paper and jute products as laminated jute manufactures. The invoices also described the goods as laminated jute fabrics, supporting their classification within the exempted goods. On that basis, the Revenue&#039;s objection that the lamination process excluded the products from exemption failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2012 14:22:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147751" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (10) TMI 504 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110735</link>
      <description>Laminated jute products were held to fall within Notification No. 53/65 because the exemption covered laminated jute products without prescribing any specific manufacturing process. The Tribunal found no basis to distinguish thermosetting lamination from other methods of lamination, and it relied on an earlier ruling treating bitumen-bonded laminated paper and jute products as laminated jute manufactures. The invoices also described the goods as laminated jute fabrics, supporting their classification within the exempted goods. On that basis, the Revenue&#039;s objection that the lamination process excluded the products from exemption failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110735</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>