<?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 (9) TMI 63 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1287</link>
    <description>Cement tiles were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 59/90-C.E. because they were treated as flooring, not floor-covering. The relevant classification issue had already been settled by the Supreme Court in the assessee&#039;s own case, which held that the goods formed part of the floor itself. In light of that binding ruling, the exemption applied to the goods and the denial of benefit was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40699" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (9) TMI 63 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1287</link>
      <description>Cement tiles were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 59/90-C.E. because they were treated as flooring, not floor-covering. The relevant classification issue had already been settled by the Supreme Court in the assessee&#039;s own case, which held that the goods formed part of the floor itself. In light of that binding ruling, the exemption applied to the goods and the denial of benefit was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1287</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>