<?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>1997 (11) TMI 105 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44857</link>
    <description>Exemption from duty on the manufactured goods depended on whether the commodity was correctly characterised as a variety of cement known as &quot;sagol&quot; rather than portland cement. The Tribunal relied on chemical analysis and rejected the Department&#039;s attempt to reopen the exemption issue on the basis that the product was portland cement. No error in that factual and evidentiary conclusion was shown to warrant appellate interference, so the exemption finding was upheld and the Department&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2010 12:15:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=83386" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (11) TMI 105 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44857</link>
      <description>Exemption from duty on the manufactured goods depended on whether the commodity was correctly characterised as a variety of cement known as &quot;sagol&quot; rather than portland cement. The Tribunal relied on chemical analysis and rejected the Department&#039;s attempt to reopen the exemption issue on the basis that the product was portland cement. No error in that factual and evidentiary conclusion was shown to warrant appellate interference, so the exemption finding was upheld and the Department&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44857</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>