<?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>1998 (2) TMI 247 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88535</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal considered the classification of Printed Polyethylene Film under Heading 49.01 or 3920.32, with a focus on Section Note 2 to Section VII. The Tribunal noted errors in the Collector&#039;s order, agreeing with the Department&#039;s argument for classification under Chapter 39 but finding the rejection of the appeal inconsistent. Emphasizing the importance of aligning findings with conclusions, the Tribunal suggested a correction to the final line of the order for coherence. The appeal was disposed of with these observations, underscoring the need for consistency between substantive findings and concluding statements.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2011 15:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125600" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (2) TMI 247 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88535</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal considered the classification of Printed Polyethylene Film under Heading 49.01 or 3920.32, with a focus on Section Note 2 to Section VII. The Tribunal noted errors in the Collector&#039;s order, agreeing with the Department&#039;s argument for classification under Chapter 39 but finding the rejection of the appeal inconsistent. Emphasizing the importance of aligning findings with conclusions, the Tribunal suggested a correction to the final line of the order for coherence. The appeal was disposed of with these observations, underscoring the need for consistency between substantive findings and concluding statements.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88535</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>