<?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>1988 (5) TMI 163 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73754</link>
    <description>Steel products described as pattis or pattas were discussed for tariff classification under the Central Excise Tariff. The tariff meaning of &quot;strips&quot; was read as covering hot or cold rolled rectangular products supplied in coil or flattened coil form, with straight length treated only as an incidental feature of flattened coils. Because the goods were short straight lengths, never coiled, and were recognised as pattis in a departmental exemption notification, the authorities erred in classifying them as strips merely on dimensional resemblance. However, the record lacked essential measurements, especially width, so the goods could not be finally classified on the existing material and required fresh determination with full dimensional details.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 May 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Jun 2011 13:31:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=112033" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (5) TMI 163 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73754</link>
      <description>Steel products described as pattis or pattas were discussed for tariff classification under the Central Excise Tariff. The tariff meaning of &quot;strips&quot; was read as covering hot or cold rolled rectangular products supplied in coil or flattened coil form, with straight length treated only as an incidental feature of flattened coils. Because the goods were short straight lengths, never coiled, and were recognised as pattis in a departmental exemption notification, the authorities erred in classifying them as strips merely on dimensional resemblance. However, the record lacked essential measurements, especially width, so the goods could not be finally classified on the existing material and required fresh determination with full dimensional details.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 May 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73754</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>