<?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 (2) TMI 377 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338677</link>
    <description>The Tribunal found that the appellants, engaged in manufacturing Art Silk Embroidery Sewing Thread, were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 35/95-CE for embroidery thread, exempting yarn except sewing thread. The circular from the Commissioner supported this interpretation, extending the exemption to embroidery yarn used in fabric manufacturing. Consequently, the appellants were entitled to the exemption, leading to the setting aside of the demand and allowing the appeals.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Aug 2017 15:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=458037" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 377 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338677</link>
      <description>The Tribunal found that the appellants, engaged in manufacturing Art Silk Embroidery Sewing Thread, were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 35/95-CE for embroidery thread, exempting yarn except sewing thread. The circular from the Commissioner supported this interpretation, extending the exemption to embroidery yarn used in fabric manufacturing. Consequently, the appellants were entitled to the exemption, leading to the setting aside of the demand and allowing the appeals.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338677</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>