<?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>2007 (11) TMI 495 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123163</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, upholding the Commissioner&#039;s order. It ruled that duty cannot be recovered from the recipient when parts are not entitled to exemption. The duty liability was placed on the manufacturers, emphasizing that duty should not be imposed twice on the same goods.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Sep 2012 11:31:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=160134" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (11) TMI 495 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123163</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, upholding the Commissioner&#039;s order. It ruled that duty cannot be recovered from the recipient when parts are not entitled to exemption. The duty liability was placed on the manufacturers, emphasizing that duty should not be imposed twice on the same goods.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123163</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>