<?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 (9) TMI 172 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89199</link>
    <description>Composite containers and fibre drums were treated as classifiable under Tariff Item 68, not Tariff Item 17(4), because the Tribunal followed its earlier final order classifying the same goods for another period. That prior classification remained controlling for the later dispute, so the contrary exemption claim based on Tariff Item 17(4) could not succeed. The impugned order was affirmed and the appeals were rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Sep 2011 10:41:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=126261" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (9) TMI 172 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89199</link>
      <description>Composite containers and fibre drums were treated as classifiable under Tariff Item 68, not Tariff Item 17(4), because the Tribunal followed its earlier final order classifying the same goods for another period. That prior classification remained controlling for the later dispute, so the contrary exemption claim based on Tariff Item 17(4) could not succeed. The impugned order was affirmed and the appeals were rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89199</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>