<?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>2002 (12) TMI 81 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46445</link>
    <description>The product was held not to be classifiable as prepared and preserved food under Tariff Item No. 1B, so the exemption claimed under Notification No. 17/70 was not available. The Tribunal&#039;s view that the product did not answer that description was found free from illegality or error, and the Court agreed that the exemption claim was untenable. The issue was therefore resolved against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Jul 2010 18:49:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84966" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (12) TMI 81 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46445</link>
      <description>The product was held not to be classifiable as prepared and preserved food under Tariff Item No. 1B, so the exemption claimed under Notification No. 17/70 was not available. The Tribunal&#039;s view that the product did not answer that description was found free from illegality or error, and the Court agreed that the exemption claim was untenable. The issue was therefore resolved against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46445</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>