<?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>2006 (4) TMI 310 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118045</link>
    <description>The tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s order, concluding that the sugar manufactured by the appellants was chargeable to sugar cess under the Sugar Cess Act. The tribunal found that although the sugar produced was of larger grain, it still fell under the definition of sugar. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision was pronounced on 27-4-2006.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 11:10:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=155042" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (4) TMI 310 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118045</link>
      <description>The tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s order, concluding that the sugar manufactured by the appellants was chargeable to sugar cess under the Sugar Cess Act. The tribunal found that although the sugar produced was of larger grain, it still fell under the definition of sugar. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision was pronounced on 27-4-2006.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118045</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>