<?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 (7) TMI 307 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85559</link>
    <description>ANFO manufactured by mixing ammonium nitrate and diesel oil was treated as falling within &quot;Prepared Explosives&quot; under Chapter Heading 3602.00, with the HSN used as an interpretative aid where the tariff contained no specific definition. On that basis, the product was regarded as excisable. Exemption under Notification No. 167/86, as amended, was unavailable because &quot;Prepared Explosives&quot; were not covered on the relevant dates and the amendment did not extend the benefit to the tariff heading under which ANFO fell. The prior Tribunal ruling on the same product was treated as fully answering the assessee&#039;s objections.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Aug 2011 18:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122626" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (7) TMI 307 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85559</link>
      <description>ANFO manufactured by mixing ammonium nitrate and diesel oil was treated as falling within &quot;Prepared Explosives&quot; under Chapter Heading 3602.00, with the HSN used as an interpretative aid where the tariff contained no specific definition. On that basis, the product was regarded as excisable. Exemption under Notification No. 167/86, as amended, was unavailable because &quot;Prepared Explosives&quot; were not covered on the relevant dates and the amendment did not extend the benefit to the tariff heading under which ANFO fell. The prior Tribunal ruling on the same product was treated as fully answering the assessee&#039;s objections.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85559</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>