<?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 (6) TMI 129 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85345</link>
    <description>Anhydrous dextrose was examined for tariff classification under sub-heading 1702.21 of the Central Excise Tariff or as an organic chemical/drug intermediate under Chapter 29. The product was claimed to meet pharmacopoeial standards and to fall within the scope of an earlier High Court ruling classifying anhydrous dextrose under Chapter 29 of the Customs Tariff. The Tribunal noted that the prior High Court decision directly covered the facts and, in the absence of any contrary High Court or Supreme Court ruling, judicial discipline required following that precedent. The classification under sub-heading 1702.21 was therefore rejected and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jun 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Aug 2011 13:23:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122412" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (6) TMI 129 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85345</link>
      <description>Anhydrous dextrose was examined for tariff classification under sub-heading 1702.21 of the Central Excise Tariff or as an organic chemical/drug intermediate under Chapter 29. The product was claimed to meet pharmacopoeial standards and to fall within the scope of an earlier High Court ruling classifying anhydrous dextrose under Chapter 29 of the Customs Tariff. The Tribunal noted that the prior High Court decision directly covered the facts and, in the absence of any contrary High Court or Supreme Court ruling, judicial discipline required following that precedent. The classification under sub-heading 1702.21 was therefore rejected and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jun 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85345</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>