<?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 (7) TMI 604 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123741</link>
    <description>Foley Balloon Catheters classified under Chapter heading 90.18 were held to fall within Serial No. 43 of Notification No. 10/2002 and to qualify for concessional duty. The exclusion language in the explanation to Serial No. 42 was treated as confined to that general entry and could not be used to defeat the specific benefit under Serial No. 43. The notification was read as a whole, but the specific entry prevailed over the general one, and the denial of exemption was not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Sep 2012 18:32:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=160702" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (7) TMI 604 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123741</link>
      <description>Foley Balloon Catheters classified under Chapter heading 90.18 were held to fall within Serial No. 43 of Notification No. 10/2002 and to qualify for concessional duty. The exclusion language in the explanation to Serial No. 42 was treated as confined to that general entry and could not be used to defeat the specific benefit under Serial No. 43. The notification was read as a whole, but the specific entry prevailed over the general one, and the denial of exemption was not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123741</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>