<?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>2018 (6) TMI 634 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361807</link>
    <description>Stainless steel surgical trays, kidney trays, bed pans and lotion bowls were held eligible for exemption under Notification No. 41/94-CE because hospital use alone did not disqualify them as household articles where their classification remained unchanged. Pressure-pan related goods were also treated as exempt since the record showed they were bottom portions and, in any event, retained the character of cooker or pan parts for exemption purposes. Aluminium sieve chassis, trays and tubs were likewise treated as utensils under Notification No. 180/88-CE because the denial of exemption was found to be vague and unsupported by a clear reasoned basis. The denial of exemption was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Nov 2018 12:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=523571" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (6) TMI 634 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361807</link>
      <description>Stainless steel surgical trays, kidney trays, bed pans and lotion bowls were held eligible for exemption under Notification No. 41/94-CE because hospital use alone did not disqualify them as household articles where their classification remained unchanged. Pressure-pan related goods were also treated as exempt since the record showed they were bottom portions and, in any event, retained the character of cooker or pan parts for exemption purposes. Aluminium sieve chassis, trays and tubs were likewise treated as utensils under Notification No. 180/88-CE because the denial of exemption was found to be vague and unsupported by a clear reasoned basis. The denial of exemption was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361807</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>