<?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 (7) TMI 241 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73185</link>
    <description>The Tribunal concluded that the disputed items are classifiable under T.I.33C as they are similar to domestic electrical appliances used in commercial settings, rejecting classification under T.I.68. The demand for duty was upheld for the period 9-3-1980 to 30-6-1980, limited to six months prior to the show cause notice, due to the absence of suppression or fraud by the Respondents. The Appeals were allowed with modifications to the demand period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 May 2011 11:17:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=111464" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (7) TMI 241 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73185</link>
      <description>The Tribunal concluded that the disputed items are classifiable under T.I.33C as they are similar to domestic electrical appliances used in commercial settings, rejecting classification under T.I.68. The demand for duty was upheld for the period 9-3-1980 to 30-6-1980, limited to six months prior to the show cause notice, due to the absence of suppression or fraud by the Respondents. The Appeals were allowed with modifications to the demand period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73185</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>