<?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 (11) TMI 152 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86060</link>
    <description>The Department failed to show a prima facie basis for treating the later communication as an appealable order, because an earlier classification order had already been passed and communicated. On classification, Chapter Note 2 of Chapter 30 and the fact that the goods were cleared in tankers for further manufacture weighed against prima facie treatment of the product as a medicament. The stay of the order-in-appeal was nevertheless granted on the Department&#039;s application.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Aug 2011 10:27:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123127" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (11) TMI 152 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86060</link>
      <description>The Department failed to show a prima facie basis for treating the later communication as an appealable order, because an earlier classification order had already been passed and communicated. On classification, Chapter Note 2 of Chapter 30 and the fact that the goods were cleared in tankers for further manufacture weighed against prima facie treatment of the product as a medicament. The stay of the order-in-appeal was nevertheless granted on the Department&#039;s application.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86060</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>