<?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 (9) TMI 188 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54782</link>
    <description>Notification No. 115/75-C.E. exempted goods manufactured in factories covered by the specified industries, but excluded rubberised coir mattresses. Rubberised coir pads were held to be distinct from mattresses on the materials on record, so the exclusion clause did not apply. The exemption was therefore available to the pads, and denial of exemption was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:28:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=93259" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (9) TMI 188 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54782</link>
      <description>Notification No. 115/75-C.E. exempted goods manufactured in factories covered by the specified industries, but excluded rubberised coir mattresses. Rubberised coir pads were held to be distinct from mattresses on the materials on record, so the exclusion clause did not apply. The exemption was therefore available to the pads, and denial of exemption was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54782</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>