<?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 (12) TMI 339 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116892</link>
    <description>Iron and steel cast furniture did not qualify as handicrafts under Notification No. 76/86-C.E. because the applicable test required the goods to be predominantly handmade and to show substantial artistic ornamentation or similar visual appeal; limited grinding, polishing and antique finishing on mechanically produced castings was insufficient, so the handicraft exemption was denied. The alternative export-based exemption depended on proof of actual export and co-relation with the cleared goods; as the record contained some export documents but further verification was needed, the matter was remanded for factual examination by the original authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:00:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153890" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (12) TMI 339 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116892</link>
      <description>Iron and steel cast furniture did not qualify as handicrafts under Notification No. 76/86-C.E. because the applicable test required the goods to be predominantly handmade and to show substantial artistic ornamentation or similar visual appeal; limited grinding, polishing and antique finishing on mechanically produced castings was insufficient, so the handicraft exemption was denied. The alternative export-based exemption depended on proof of actual export and co-relation with the cleared goods; as the record contained some export documents but further verification was needed, the matter was remanded for factual examination by the original authority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116892</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>