<?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>1997 (3) TMI 265 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88000</link>
    <description>HDPE man-made filament twine was treated as classifiable under Tariff Item 18(II)(1) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff rather than Tariff Item 68. The classification dispute was resolved by following the earlier High Court view on the same goods, which had already been taken to the Supreme Court and not upset there. On that basis, the Tribunal accepted the assessee&#039;s classification position and the department&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2011 13:26:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125066" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (3) TMI 265 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88000</link>
      <description>HDPE man-made filament twine was treated as classifiable under Tariff Item 18(II)(1) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff rather than Tariff Item 68. The classification dispute was resolved by following the earlier High Court view on the same goods, which had already been taken to the Supreme Court and not upset there. On that basis, the Tribunal accepted the assessee&#039;s classification position and the department&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88000</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>