<?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>2004 (1) TMI 185 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52716</link>
    <description>Fabricated duct work made at site was treated as duct classifiable under sub-heading 7308.90, and that classification was taken to bring the duct system within the exemption available under Notification Nos. 61/90 and 41/94. The dispute over the identity of the manufacturer was not examined, as the decisive point was the nature and classification of the fabricated item itself. On that basis, the duct system was regarded as exempt from duty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Oct 2010 13:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=91193" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (1) TMI 185 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52716</link>
      <description>Fabricated duct work made at site was treated as duct classifiable under sub-heading 7308.90, and that classification was taken to bring the duct system within the exemption available under Notification Nos. 61/90 and 41/94. The dispute over the identity of the manufacturer was not examined, as the decisive point was the nature and classification of the fabricated item itself. On that basis, the duct system was regarded as exempt from duty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52716</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>