<?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 (8) TMI 500 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114021</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside duty demands and confirming the appellant&#039;s entitlement to the benefit of Notification No. 88/94 for importing Silane Treated Glass Fabrics during the relevant period. The decision emphasized that subsequent amendments were clarificatory, aiming to maintain the original intent of exemption provisions and avoid absurd or inequitable results.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 May 2012 18:16:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151027" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (8) TMI 500 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114021</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside duty demands and confirming the appellant&#039;s entitlement to the benefit of Notification No. 88/94 for importing Silane Treated Glass Fabrics during the relevant period. The decision emphasized that subsequent amendments were clarificatory, aiming to maintain the original intent of exemption provisions and avoid absurd or inequitable results.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114021</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>