<?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>2005 (10) TMI 350 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116747</link>
    <description>Exemption under Notification No. 40/95-C.E. could not be denied where cotton fabrics were only subjected to scouring and singeing, both being specified processes covered by the notification. A chemical report based on the assessee&#039;s letter and technical literature, and not on a proper test of the sample, lacked sufficient evidentiary value to prove bleaching. The factual finding that no bleaching process was carried out was therefore sustained, and the exemption benefit remained available to the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Jun 2012 12:49:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153745" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (10) TMI 350 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116747</link>
      <description>Exemption under Notification No. 40/95-C.E. could not be denied where cotton fabrics were only subjected to scouring and singeing, both being specified processes covered by the notification. A chemical report based on the assessee&#039;s letter and technical literature, and not on a proper test of the sample, lacked sufficient evidentiary value to prove bleaching. The factual finding that no bleaching process was carried out was therefore sustained, and the exemption benefit remained available to the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116747</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>