<?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>1996 (2) TMI 278 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85275</link>
    <description>The judgment favored the appellants due to genuine misunderstanding and incorrect classification of the mounting gasket. The penalty was set aside, and the demand was upheld for six months, overturning the remaining portion of the order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Aug 2011 18:27:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122342" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (2) TMI 278 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85275</link>
      <description>The judgment favored the appellants due to genuine misunderstanding and incorrect classification of the mounting gasket. The penalty was set aside, and the demand was upheld for six months, overturning the remaining portion of the order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85275</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>