<?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 (2) TMI 352 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54076</link>
    <description>Straight blending of mineral oils was treated as &quot;blending&quot; for purposes of the exemption notifications, and products manufactured in that manner were found to fall within the descriptions of speciality oils and lubricating oils. Because the notification language did not require blending with any other substance, the products qualified for exemption. The duty demand and penalty were therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Oct 2010 17:08:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92553" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (2) TMI 352 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54076</link>
      <description>Straight blending of mineral oils was treated as &quot;blending&quot; for purposes of the exemption notifications, and products manufactured in that manner were found to fall within the descriptions of speciality oils and lubricating oils. Because the notification language did not require blending with any other substance, the products qualified for exemption. The duty demand and penalty were therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54076</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>