<?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 (9) TMI 249 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52529</link>
    <description>Lathe machines supplied to specified institutions were treated as &quot;equipment&quot; under Notification No. 10/97, because the exemption covered specified goods supplied to designated institutions and the prescribed conditions were met. The deciding question was whether a lathe machine fell within that expression; it was regarded as technical equipment in the context of supply to a research centre and a teaching institution, and the exemption from excise duty was available.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Oct 2010 13:15:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=91006" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (9) TMI 249 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52529</link>
      <description>Lathe machines supplied to specified institutions were treated as &quot;equipment&quot; under Notification No. 10/97, because the exemption covered specified goods supplied to designated institutions and the prescribed conditions were met. The deciding question was whether a lathe machine fell within that expression; it was regarded as technical equipment in the context of supply to a research centre and a teaching institution, and the exemption from excise duty was available.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52529</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>