<?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 (9) TMI 258 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85789</link>
    <description>Reinforced fibre glass plastic tanks, vessels, scrubbers and gratings used in chemical plants were treated as plastic articles and correctly classified under Heading 3926.90, because they were not shown to be builder&#039;s ware or otherwise excluded. On that classification, the benefit of Notification No. 132/86 was admissible, subject to satisfaction of its prescribed conditions. The assessee&#039;s classification was therefore sustained and the departmental challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Aug 2011 12:04:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122856" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (9) TMI 258 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85789</link>
      <description>Reinforced fibre glass plastic tanks, vessels, scrubbers and gratings used in chemical plants were treated as plastic articles and correctly classified under Heading 3926.90, because they were not shown to be builder&#039;s ware or otherwise excluded. On that classification, the benefit of Notification No. 132/86 was admissible, subject to satisfaction of its prescribed conditions. The assessee&#039;s classification was therefore sustained and the departmental challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85789</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>