<?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>2011 (5) TMI 751 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212178</link>
    <description>Forgings and forged articles of alloy steel fell within the exemption under Notification No. 223/88-CE because the term &quot;steel&quot; in Chapter 72 was read broadly to include other alloy steel. The notification expressly excluded only stainless steel, and that exclusion could not be extended by implication to alloy steel. As the goods were not shown to be stainless steel, the exemption applied and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 May 2015 14:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=185591" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (5) TMI 751 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212178</link>
      <description>Forgings and forged articles of alloy steel fell within the exemption under Notification No. 223/88-CE because the term &quot;steel&quot; in Chapter 72 was read broadly to include other alloy steel. The notification expressly excluded only stainless steel, and that exclusion could not be extended by implication to alloy steel. As the goods were not shown to be stainless steel, the exemption applied and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212178</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>