<?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 (5) TMI 236 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85652</link>
    <description>Unglazed ceramic facing, flooring and split flooring tiles made of red clay were held to fall under Heading 6905 as unglazed wall, paving or flooring tiles, rather than under Heading 6903.90 as other ceramic constructional goods. The decisive point was that Chapter 69 covers ceramic products fired after shaping, and the goods were admittedly ceramic, unglazed, and used for paving and flooring. Heading 6905 was treated as the more specific tariff provision, while Heading 6903 was regarded as a general residuary category for other ceramic constructional articles. The classification adopted by the Revenue was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Aug 2011 13:29:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122719" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (5) TMI 236 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85652</link>
      <description>Unglazed ceramic facing, flooring and split flooring tiles made of red clay were held to fall under Heading 6905 as unglazed wall, paving or flooring tiles, rather than under Heading 6903.90 as other ceramic constructional goods. The decisive point was that Chapter 69 covers ceramic products fired after shaping, and the goods were admittedly ceramic, unglazed, and used for paving and flooring. Heading 6905 was treated as the more specific tariff provision, while Heading 6903 was regarded as a general residuary category for other ceramic constructional articles. The classification adopted by the Revenue was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85652</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>