<?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>2017 (1) TMI 25 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336945</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s decision, setting aside the Order-in-Original and allowing the respondent&#039;s appeal. It confirmed that the respondent correctly availed the exemption under Notification No. 6/2002-CE as the dyed yarn was manufactured from duty-paid texturized yarn. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order was affirmed, providing consequential relief to the respondent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 01 Jan 2017 13:46:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=453700" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 25 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336945</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s decision, setting aside the Order-in-Original and allowing the respondent&#039;s appeal. It confirmed that the respondent correctly availed the exemption under Notification No. 6/2002-CE as the dyed yarn was manufactured from duty-paid texturized yarn. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order was affirmed, providing consequential relief to the respondent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336945</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>