<?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>2003 (4) TMI 146 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51875</link>
    <description>For Rule 96ZI, &quot;meter length&quot; in an embroidery machine with two rollers was to be reckoned by reference to one roller only, because the later amendment was treated as clarificatory of an originally undefined expression and consistent with the earlier departmental circular. The broader departmental method of counting both rollers was not accepted, so the assessee&#039;s method was upheld and the challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Sep 2010 10:14:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90353" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (4) TMI 146 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51875</link>
      <description>For Rule 96ZI, &quot;meter length&quot; in an embroidery machine with two rollers was to be reckoned by reference to one roller only, because the later amendment was treated as clarificatory of an originally undefined expression and consistent with the earlier departmental circular. The broader departmental method of counting both rollers was not accepted, so the assessee&#039;s method was upheld and the challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51875</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>