<?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>1989 (12) TMI 162 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74819</link>
    <description>Limited machining that merely removes surface defects and confines fine machining to collar portions does not bring a new marketable product into existence. Cast iron rolls therefore remained classifiable as castings under Tariff Item 25 of the Central Excise Tariff and did not shift to Tariff Item 68. The Department&#039;s contrary classification was rejected, and the demand based on Tariff Item 68 did not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Dec 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Jun 2011 12:35:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=113098" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (12) TMI 162 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74819</link>
      <description>Limited machining that merely removes surface defects and confines fine machining to collar portions does not bring a new marketable product into existence. Cast iron rolls therefore remained classifiable as castings under Tariff Item 25 of the Central Excise Tariff and did not shift to Tariff Item 68. The Department&#039;s contrary classification was rejected, and the demand based on Tariff Item 68 did not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Dec 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74819</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>