<?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>2016 (7) TMI 652 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330054</link>
    <description>Exemption for apparel manufactured for personal use applied only where the goods were not intended for sale, so entitlement depended on verification of the factual position for each clearance. As the adjudication stage had not undertaken that verification, remand was considered necessary to examine whether the garments were in fact made for individual customers&#039; personal use. The remand for factual verification was upheld and the appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Jul 2016 12:05:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=435151" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (7) TMI 652 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330054</link>
      <description>Exemption for apparel manufactured for personal use applied only where the goods were not intended for sale, so entitlement depended on verification of the factual position for each clearance. As the adjudication stage had not undertaken that verification, remand was considered necessary to examine whether the garments were in fact made for individual customers&#039; personal use. The remand for factual verification was upheld and the appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330054</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>