<?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 (6) TMI 462 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113044</link>
    <description>Fabric-dyeing and calendering machines imported for use in garment manufacture were treated as eligible for exemption from countervailing duty under Notification No. 29/97-Cus., as amended. Earlier Tribunal rulings had held that machinery used at any stage of the garment-manufacturing process qualifies for the exemption, and dyeing and calendering were recognised as such stages. The imported machines were admittedly used for those purposes, so the Tribunal followed its prior decisions and declined to depart merely because departmental appeals were pending without any stay of operation. The exemption was therefore available, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 May 2012 15:06:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150060" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (6) TMI 462 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113044</link>
      <description>Fabric-dyeing and calendering machines imported for use in garment manufacture were treated as eligible for exemption from countervailing duty under Notification No. 29/97-Cus., as amended. Earlier Tribunal rulings had held that machinery used at any stage of the garment-manufacturing process qualifies for the exemption, and dyeing and calendering were recognised as such stages. The imported machines were admittedly used for those purposes, so the Tribunal followed its prior decisions and declined to depart merely because departmental appeals were pending without any stay of operation. The exemption was therefore available, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113044</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>