<?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 (8) TMI 669 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172348</link>
    <description>Dyed yarn manufactured from doubled yarn qualified for exemption under Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. because the underlying single yarn had already suffered duty. The Tribunal followed its earlier decisions on the same exemption principle and treated the comparable notification as supporting the same result in analogous circumstances. On that basis, the exemption was held admissible to the appellants and the impugned orders were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2015 15:57:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=393911" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (8) TMI 669 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172348</link>
      <description>Dyed yarn manufactured from doubled yarn qualified for exemption under Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. because the underlying single yarn had already suffered duty. The Tribunal followed its earlier decisions on the same exemption principle and treated the comparable notification as supporting the same result in analogous circumstances. On that basis, the exemption was held admissible to the appellants and the impugned orders were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172348</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>