<?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 (7) TMI 159 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83384</link>
    <description>Flat bed printing screens, described as printing frames, were treated as classifiable under Tariff Heading 84.42 rather than Tariff Heading 59.09. The Tribunal relied on an earlier decision on printing frames and applied Section Note 1(a) to Section XVI to reject the Revenue&#039;s classification view. Once classification was accepted in favour of the assessee, the penalty imposed on the contrary footing could not survive and was quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jul 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2011 11:15:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120529" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (7) TMI 159 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83384</link>
      <description>Flat bed printing screens, described as printing frames, were treated as classifiable under Tariff Heading 84.42 rather than Tariff Heading 59.09. The Tribunal relied on an earlier decision on printing frames and applied Section Note 1(a) to Section XVI to reject the Revenue&#039;s classification view. Once classification was accepted in favour of the assessee, the penalty imposed on the contrary footing could not survive and was quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jul 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83384</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>