<?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>2013 (5) TMI 1066 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310917</link>
    <description>Flavoured milk of animal origin was treated as covered by the exemption notifications applicable to the product, because the notifications were intended to exempt flavoured milk of animal origin from excise duty and the appellant&#039;s product matched that description. The separate classification issue was not pressed and therefore was not adjudicated. On that basis, the exemption benefit was held available for the relevant periods and the appeals were allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Nov 2023 12:44:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=733001" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (5) TMI 1066 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310917</link>
      <description>Flavoured milk of animal origin was treated as covered by the exemption notifications applicable to the product, because the notifications were intended to exempt flavoured milk of animal origin from excise duty and the appellant&#039;s product matched that description. The separate classification issue was not pressed and therefore was not adjudicated. On that basis, the exemption benefit was held available for the relevant periods and the appeals were allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310917</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>