<?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 1058 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339358</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals based on the Supreme Court judgment, Textile Ministry Circular, and the predominance of manual processes in garment manufacturing. The decision emphasized that even with minimal machine involvement, garments could be classified as handicrafts, entitling them to exemption under Notification No. 76/1986-CE.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Nov 2017 10:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=459698" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 1058 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339358</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals based on the Supreme Court judgment, Textile Ministry Circular, and the predominance of manual processes in garment manufacturing. The decision emphasized that even with minimal machine involvement, garments could be classified as handicrafts, entitling them to exemption under Notification No. 76/1986-CE.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339358</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>