<?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 225 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51705</link>
    <description>The appeal was allowed as the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the brand name on the raw material does not disqualify them from benefits. The impugned order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Sep 2010 17:28:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90183" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (9) TMI 225 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51705</link>
      <description>The appeal was allowed as the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the brand name on the raw material does not disqualify them from benefits. The impugned order was set aside.</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=51705</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>