<?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>2005 (3) TMI 223 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53944</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the assessee and its Manager, setting aside the impugned order, and rejected the appeal filed by the Commissioner, upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal confirmed that the appellant was entitled to the exemption under the relevant Customs Notifications and that the activities undertaken constituted &#039;manufacture&#039; under the broader interpretation applicable to Customs Notifications.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Oct 2010 10:42:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92421" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (3) TMI 223 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53944</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the assessee and its Manager, setting aside the impugned order, and rejected the appeal filed by the Commissioner, upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal confirmed that the appellant was entitled to the exemption under the relevant Customs Notifications and that the activities undertaken constituted &#039;manufacture&#039; under the broader interpretation applicable to Customs Notifications.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53944</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>