<?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>2025 (8) TMI 1704 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464058</link>
    <description>Fly ash bricks remained eligible for exemption under Notification No. 1/2011-CE because the notification covered bricks falling under both Chapter 68 and Chapter 69. The tariff classification dispute between those chapters did not defeat the exemption where the goods were expressly included by the notification and were not excluded on the ground advanced by Revenue. The Tribunal therefore upheld the grant of exemption and rejected Revenue&#039;s challenge to the appellate order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2025 20:02:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=855565" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (8) TMI 1704 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464058</link>
      <description>Fly ash bricks remained eligible for exemption under Notification No. 1/2011-CE because the notification covered bricks falling under both Chapter 68 and Chapter 69. The tariff classification dispute between those chapters did not defeat the exemption where the goods were expressly included by the notification and were not excluded on the ground advanced by Revenue. The Tribunal therefore upheld the grant of exemption and rejected Revenue&#039;s challenge to the appellate order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464058</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>