<?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 464 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118880</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal against the Commissioner&#039;s decision, affirming that imported EHT cables, when cut for use in Potentiometers, qualified for exemption under the relevant entry despite being imported in running length. Citing precedents involving similar items, the Tribunal found the exemption applicable, rejecting the Revenue&#039;s arguments and upholding the Commissioner&#039;s Order-in-Appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Jul 2012 14:35:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=155877" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (10) TMI 464 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118880</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal against the Commissioner&#039;s decision, affirming that imported EHT cables, when cut for use in Potentiometers, qualified for exemption under the relevant entry despite being imported in running length. Citing precedents involving similar items, the Tribunal found the exemption applicable, rejecting the Revenue&#039;s arguments and upholding the Commissioner&#039;s Order-in-Appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118880</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>