<?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 (3) TMI 311 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85599</link>
    <description>Rubber polishes were examined for tariff classification, with the dispute limited to whether they fell under Tariff Item 68. The respondent accepted that classification and did not challenge that part of the order before the appellate authority. On that basis, the Tribunal restored the Assistant Collector&#039;s classification under Tariff Item 68, and the classification was upheld in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Aug 2011 11:07:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122666" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (3) TMI 311 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85599</link>
      <description>Rubber polishes were examined for tariff classification, with the dispute limited to whether they fell under Tariff Item 68. The respondent accepted that classification and did not challenge that part of the order before the appellate authority. On that basis, the Tribunal restored the Assistant Collector&#039;s classification under Tariff Item 68, and the classification was upheld in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85599</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>