<?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>2000 (5) TMI 55 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48800</link>
    <description>An exemption notification for &quot;printing frames&quot; under Heading 84.42 was construed broadly to include design printing nickel cylinders and similar cylindrical printing components used captively in textile printing within the factory. Because the goods were treated as printing machinery components and a departmental clarification supported exemption for design screens and cylinder screens when used captively, the Revenue&#039;s restrictive reading was rejected. The earlier notification was held not to create a separate disallowance for such goods, and the later notification did not displace the exemption otherwise available. On that construction, the exemption under Notification No. 201/87-C.E. applied to the goods and the challenge to exemption failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Aug 2010 15:28:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87280" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (5) TMI 55 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48800</link>
      <description>An exemption notification for &quot;printing frames&quot; under Heading 84.42 was construed broadly to include design printing nickel cylinders and similar cylindrical printing components used captively in textile printing within the factory. Because the goods were treated as printing machinery components and a departmental clarification supported exemption for design screens and cylinder screens when used captively, the Revenue&#039;s restrictive reading was rejected. The earlier notification was held not to create a separate disallowance for such goods, and the later notification did not displace the exemption otherwise available. On that construction, the exemption under Notification No. 201/87-C.E. applied to the goods and the challenge to exemption failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48800</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>