<?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>1987 (5) TMI 144 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72978</link>
    <description>Industrial scrap made up of cuttings of rails, billets, plates, axles and channels was treated as iron and steel products under Tariff Item 26AA because tariff classification depended on the goods&#039; essential character and market identity, not on the label &quot;scrap&quot; alone. The tribunal noted that cut or rejected steel articles may retain their original class if they are merely reduced in size and remain recognisable as industrial scrap, and their later use for melting does not by itself change the tariff heading. The notice was also held adequate despite not expressly citing Tariff Item 26AA, because the material facts were disclosed and no prejudice was shown. The departmental classification was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 May 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 May 2011 12:57:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=111257" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (5) TMI 144 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72978</link>
      <description>Industrial scrap made up of cuttings of rails, billets, plates, axles and channels was treated as iron and steel products under Tariff Item 26AA because tariff classification depended on the goods&#039; essential character and market identity, not on the label &quot;scrap&quot; alone. The tribunal noted that cut or rejected steel articles may retain their original class if they are merely reduced in size and remain recognisable as industrial scrap, and their later use for melting does not by itself change the tariff heading. The notice was also held adequate despite not expressly citing Tariff Item 26AA, because the material facts were disclosed and no prejudice was shown. The departmental classification was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 May 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72978</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>