<?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 (11) TMI 188 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89446</link>
    <description>Classification of the product &quot;gems&quot; was determined under Heading 18.03 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, because the later period in dispute had already been classified by the Commissioner (Appeals) under that heading and no departmental appeal had been filed against it. On those facts and circumstances, the existing classification was accepted. The alternative claim under Heading 18.04 was not accepted, and the remaining points were dismissed as not pressed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2011 11:12:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=126508" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (11) TMI 188 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89446</link>
      <description>Classification of the product &quot;gems&quot; was determined under Heading 18.03 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, because the later period in dispute had already been classified by the Commissioner (Appeals) under that heading and no departmental appeal had been filed against it. On those facts and circumstances, the existing classification was accepted. The alternative claim under Heading 18.04 was not accepted, and the remaining points were dismissed as not pressed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89446</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>