<?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 (10) TMI 418 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114547</link>
    <description>Vertical blinds made from processed handloom fabrics qualified for nil-rate duty under the cited excise notifications as made-up textile articles of Chapter 63. The expression &quot;handloom fabrics&quot; was read without any limiting distinction between processed and unprocessed fabric, and coating, curing or slitting did not destroy the character of the base material. The exemption was therefore available to the vertical blinds, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 16:04:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151546" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (10) TMI 418 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114547</link>
      <description>Vertical blinds made from processed handloom fabrics qualified for nil-rate duty under the cited excise notifications as made-up textile articles of Chapter 63. The expression &quot;handloom fabrics&quot; was read without any limiting distinction between processed and unprocessed fabric, and coating, curing or slitting did not destroy the character of the base material. The exemption was therefore available to the vertical blinds, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114547</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>