<?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 (8) TMI 235 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89566</link>
    <description>Classification of plunger or brake piston goods depended on the construction of Item 6 in Notification No. 99/71, as amended, and whether the earlier High Court interpretation in Southern Automatic Industries controlled the later notification entries. The Tribunal held that amended entries must be read in the context of the original exemption scheme and that, in the absence of any contrary decision of the Supreme Court or another High Court, the jurisdictional High Court&#039;s view must be followed. On that basis, the departmental claim that the goods were dutiable as pistons was rejected and the Revenue&#039;s appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Sep 2011 11:21:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=126628" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (8) TMI 235 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89566</link>
      <description>Classification of plunger or brake piston goods depended on the construction of Item 6 in Notification No. 99/71, as amended, and whether the earlier High Court interpretation in Southern Automatic Industries controlled the later notification entries. The Tribunal held that amended entries must be read in the context of the original exemption scheme and that, in the absence of any contrary decision of the Supreme Court or another High Court, the jurisdictional High Court&#039;s view must be followed. On that basis, the departmental claim that the goods were dutiable as pistons was rejected and the Revenue&#039;s appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89566</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>