<?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 (12) TMI 256 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74671</link>
    <description>Sal olein and sal stearine, obtained by fractionation of sal oil into liquid and solid portions and stated to be unfit for human consumption, retained the character of vegetable non-essential oil. Applying earlier decisions on similar non-edible hydrogenated or fractionated oils, the Tribunal treated the specific tariff entry as prevailing over the residuary entry. The goods were therefore classifiable under Tariff Item 12 and not under Tariff Item 68 for central excise duty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Jun 2011 12:50:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=112950" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (12) TMI 256 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74671</link>
      <description>Sal olein and sal stearine, obtained by fractionation of sal oil into liquid and solid portions and stated to be unfit for human consumption, retained the character of vegetable non-essential oil. Applying earlier decisions on similar non-edible hydrogenated or fractionated oils, the Tribunal treated the specific tariff entry as prevailing over the residuary entry. The goods were therefore classifiable under Tariff Item 12 and not under Tariff Item 68 for central excise duty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74671</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>