<?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>2004 (1) TMI 521 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111413</link>
    <description>An exemption notification confined to a complete instrument cannot be extended to a mere part of that instrument. A load cell was treated as part of a weigh-bridge, and no evidence showed that it was itself a complete instrument. A decision on classification under a different notification did not control the claim. On that basis, exemption under Notification No. 111/92 was not available, and the rejection of the claim was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:36:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=148429" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (1) TMI 521 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111413</link>
      <description>An exemption notification confined to a complete instrument cannot be extended to a mere part of that instrument. A load cell was treated as part of a weigh-bridge, and no evidence showed that it was itself a complete instrument. A decision on classification under a different notification did not control the claim. On that basis, exemption under Notification No. 111/92 was not available, and the rejection of the claim was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111413</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>