<?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 (4) TMI 234 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54537</link>
    <description>Samples of yarn and fabrics drawn at the intermediate stage of manufacture for quality testing, properly recorded in laboratory registers and destroyed after testing, were treated as not being finished goods. On that basis, the record supported the view that no excise duty was payable on such samples, and the earlier appellate finding on the same issue was followed because there was no material change warranting a different result. The Revenue&#039;s challenge therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Oct 2010 16:24:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=93014" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (4) TMI 234 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54537</link>
      <description>Samples of yarn and fabrics drawn at the intermediate stage of manufacture for quality testing, properly recorded in laboratory registers and destroyed after testing, were treated as not being finished goods. On that basis, the record supported the view that no excise duty was payable on such samples, and the earlier appellate finding on the same issue was followed because there was no material change warranting a different result. The Revenue&#039;s challenge therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54537</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>