<?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>2015 (12) TMI 325 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269021</link>
    <description>Supervision charges for making tents, mosquito nets, trousers and shorts were not eligible for exemption as services relating to textile processing. The exemption covered services connected with agriculture, printing, textile processing or education, while textile processing referred to operations such as singeing, bleaching and dyeing of textiles. Tents, mosquito nets and apparel were treated as articles of textiles or apparels, separately classified under the Central Excise Tariff, rather than textiles themselves. Textile and textile articles could not be equated to expand the exemption&#039;s scope. Consequently, the exemption claim failed and the demand was restored in favour of Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Dec 2015 10:18:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=407895" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (12) TMI 325 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269021</link>
      <description>Supervision charges for making tents, mosquito nets, trousers and shorts were not eligible for exemption as services relating to textile processing. The exemption covered services connected with agriculture, printing, textile processing or education, while textile processing referred to operations such as singeing, bleaching and dyeing of textiles. Tents, mosquito nets and apparel were treated as articles of textiles or apparels, separately classified under the Central Excise Tariff, rather than textiles themselves. Textile and textile articles could not be equated to expand the exemption&#039;s scope. Consequently, the exemption claim failed and the demand was restored in favour of Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269021</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>