<?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 (12) TMI 443 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126856</link>
    <description>Entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 339/86 depended on whether the infusion set was for long-term use. Evidence including medical certificates and prior departmental consideration supported the finding that the goods were used for giving intravenous fluids and parenteral drugs to indoor patients over an extended period. That reasoned factual finding was not displaced by any contrary evidence from the Revenue, so the exemption claim was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2013 17:51:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163742" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (12) TMI 443 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126856</link>
      <description>Entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 339/86 depended on whether the infusion set was for long-term use. Evidence including medical certificates and prior departmental consideration supported the finding that the goods were used for giving intravenous fluids and parenteral drugs to indoor patients over an extended period. That reasoned factual finding was not displaced by any contrary evidence from the Revenue, so the exemption claim was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126856</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>