<?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>1983 (12) TMI 283 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166792</link>
    <description>The Tribunal rejected the appellants&#039; appeal seeking exemption from additional excise duty and Handloom Cess on processed man-made fabrics for trade samples. It held that there was no promise by the Department to waive the duty, and trade samples were deemed subject to the cess as processed fabrics. The decision emphasized uniform treatment in taxation matters and dismissed the appellants&#039; claims of exemption based on estoppel or trade sample classification, affirming their liability to pay both duties.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Dec 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Nov 2014 10:45:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=368184" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (12) TMI 283 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166792</link>
      <description>The Tribunal rejected the appellants&#039; appeal seeking exemption from additional excise duty and Handloom Cess on processed man-made fabrics for trade samples. It held that there was no promise by the Department to waive the duty, and trade samples were deemed subject to the cess as processed fabrics. The decision emphasized uniform treatment in taxation matters and dismissed the appellants&#039; claims of exemption based on estoppel or trade sample classification, affirming their liability to pay both duties.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Dec 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166792</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>