<?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>1994 (4) TMI 126 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83134</link>
    <description>Slides for cigarette packets were treated as excisable goods under sub-heading 4818.90 because an earlier Tribunal decision had already classified identical goods under that tariff entry. The contrary authorities relied on by the assessee were found distinguishable, so the prior Tribunal view was followed. The classification adopted by the lower authorities was therefore upheld and the issue was decided against the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:12:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120279" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (4) TMI 126 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83134</link>
      <description>Slides for cigarette packets were treated as excisable goods under sub-heading 4818.90 because an earlier Tribunal decision had already classified identical goods under that tariff entry. The contrary authorities relied on by the assessee were found distinguishable, so the prior Tribunal view was followed. The classification adopted by the lower authorities was therefore upheld and the issue was decided against the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83134</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>