<?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>1986 (9) TMI 165 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72329</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the classification of rough ophthalmic glass blanks under item No. 23A(4) of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule, setting aside the Appellate Collector&#039;s order and restoring the Assistant Collector&#039;s decision. The dispute revolved around the correct classification for the levy of additional duty of customs, with the Tribunal determining that rough blanks do not fall under the category of glassware but rather under &quot;other glass.&quot; The Central Government&#039;s show cause notice for review was challenged on the grounds of limitation, but it was clarified that the limitation provision did not apply in this case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Sep 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 May 2011 15:57:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=110608" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (9) TMI 165 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72329</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the classification of rough ophthalmic glass blanks under item No. 23A(4) of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule, setting aside the Appellate Collector&#039;s order and restoring the Assistant Collector&#039;s decision. The dispute revolved around the correct classification for the levy of additional duty of customs, with the Tribunal determining that rough blanks do not fall under the category of glassware but rather under &quot;other glass.&quot; The Central Government&#039;s show cause notice for review was challenged on the grounds of limitation, but it was clarified that the limitation provision did not apply in this case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Sep 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72329</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>