<?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 (10) TMI 292 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74734</link>
    <description>Head light glass covers for use in motor vehicles were treated as classifiable under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff rather than Item 23-A(4). The Tribunal followed an earlier binding decision on the same classification issue, which had also remained undisturbed after the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. On that settled position, no interference with the Item 68 classification was warranted, and the appeals were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Jun 2011 16:30:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=113013" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (10) TMI 292 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74734</link>
      <description>Head light glass covers for use in motor vehicles were treated as classifiable under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff rather than Item 23-A(4). The Tribunal followed an earlier binding decision on the same classification issue, which had also remained undisturbed after the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. On that settled position, no interference with the Item 68 classification was warranted, and the appeals were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74734</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>