<?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 (11) TMI 169 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53540</link>
    <description>Carding, knitting, shearing and back-coating on knitted pile fabric were held not to amount to manufacture under Chapter Note 4 to Chapter 60 because that note covers only specified textile processes and processes of the same kind. The record showed no bleaching, mercerising, dyeing, printing, waterproofing, shrink-proofing, tentering, heat-setting, or analogous process, and no evidence of drying through a hot air chamber or similar machine. The words &quot;any other process&quot; were read ejusdem generis with the listed processes. Prior payment of duty did not bar the claim to exemption when the fabric remained unprocessed, so the goods were treated as exempt from duty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:51:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92017" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (11) TMI 169 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53540</link>
      <description>Carding, knitting, shearing and back-coating on knitted pile fabric were held not to amount to manufacture under Chapter Note 4 to Chapter 60 because that note covers only specified textile processes and processes of the same kind. The record showed no bleaching, mercerising, dyeing, printing, waterproofing, shrink-proofing, tentering, heat-setting, or analogous process, and no evidence of drying through a hot air chamber or similar machine. The words &quot;any other process&quot; were read ejusdem generis with the listed processes. Prior payment of duty did not bar the claim to exemption when the fabric remained unprocessed, so the goods were treated as exempt from duty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53540</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>