<?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 (10) TMI 121 - CEGAT, COURT NO. III, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50138</link>
    <description>Rubberised coir mattresses and cushions were treated as exempt goods under Notification No. 115/75-C.E. because the notification covered products manufactured in factories within the scheduled coir industry, and the Board&#039;s circular clarified that rubberised coir mattresses with about 55% coir fell within coir products under Section 3(d) of the Coir Industry Act, 1953. The chemical test report showing 55.5% coir content and 33.8% latex content supported exemption, while the alleged change in manufacturing process was unsupported by evidence. The departmental chemical engineer&#039;s opinion was rejected because he had not inspected the factory or samples, and banking or departmental filings alone could not sustain the demand, penalty, or confiscation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Aug 2010 18:53:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88618" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (10) TMI 121 - CEGAT, COURT NO. III, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50138</link>
      <description>Rubberised coir mattresses and cushions were treated as exempt goods under Notification No. 115/75-C.E. because the notification covered products manufactured in factories within the scheduled coir industry, and the Board&#039;s circular clarified that rubberised coir mattresses with about 55% coir fell within coir products under Section 3(d) of the Coir Industry Act, 1953. The chemical test report showing 55.5% coir content and 33.8% latex content supported exemption, while the alleged change in manufacturing process was unsupported by evidence. The departmental chemical engineer&#039;s opinion was rejected because he had not inspected the factory or samples, and banking or departmental filings alone could not sustain the demand, penalty, or confiscation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50138</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>