<?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 (9) TMI 187 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51559</link>
    <description>Notification No. 15/98-C.E. (N.T.) amending the definition of meter length under Rule 96ZI(6) was treated as clarificatory, because it explained that meter length for an embroidery machine means the distance between the first and last needles of only one roller; the amendment therefore operated retrospectively. The Baroda Collectorate Trade Notice on meter length computation was also treated as applicable and binding in the absence of any contrary Bangalore Collectorate instruction, so Revenue could not adopt a contrary interpretation. On that basis, the assessee&#039;s method of computation was sustained and the departmental appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Sep 2010 13:50:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90037" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (9) TMI 187 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51559</link>
      <description>Notification No. 15/98-C.E. (N.T.) amending the definition of meter length under Rule 96ZI(6) was treated as clarificatory, because it explained that meter length for an embroidery machine means the distance between the first and last needles of only one roller; the amendment therefore operated retrospectively. The Baroda Collectorate Trade Notice on meter length computation was also treated as applicable and binding in the absence of any contrary Bangalore Collectorate instruction, so Revenue could not adopt a contrary interpretation. On that basis, the assessee&#039;s method of computation was sustained and the departmental appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51559</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>