<?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>2008 (6) TMI 404 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123725</link>
    <description>Entitlement to nil rate of duty under Notification No. 6/2002 for blended yarn turned on the actual composition of the goods and the surrounding evidence, not merely the invoice description. Although the invoice showed a 70:30 blend, the purchase order, laboratory test reports and the parties&#039; conduct supported the conclusion that the yarn was intended to be cleared as exempt and that the polyester content remained below the disqualifying threshold. The 70:30 description, though ordinarily significant, did not override the evidence establishing exemption eligibility. The appellant was therefore entitled to the exemption.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:55:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=160686" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (6) TMI 404 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123725</link>
      <description>Entitlement to nil rate of duty under Notification No. 6/2002 for blended yarn turned on the actual composition of the goods and the surrounding evidence, not merely the invoice description. Although the invoice showed a 70:30 blend, the purchase order, laboratory test reports and the parties&#039; conduct supported the conclusion that the yarn was intended to be cleared as exempt and that the polyester content remained below the disqualifying threshold. The 70:30 description, though ordinarily significant, did not override the evidence establishing exemption eligibility. The appellant was therefore entitled to the exemption.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123725</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>