<?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 (5) TMI 188 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90103</link>
    <description>For the pre-amendment tariff period, the classification of M.S. Flat 16 x 5 mm / 19 x 5 mm depended on the prevailing tariff advice, which distinguished flats from bars by reference to the mill process and dimensional criteria. Applying that guidance, the product matched the description of bars and not flats. The adjudicating authority&#039;s classification as flats was therefore incorrect, and the assessee was held entitled to relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 May 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Oct 2011 14:40:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127165" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (5) TMI 188 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90103</link>
      <description>For the pre-amendment tariff period, the classification of M.S. Flat 16 x 5 mm / 19 x 5 mm depended on the prevailing tariff advice, which distinguished flats from bars by reference to the mill process and dimensional criteria. Applying that guidance, the product matched the description of bars and not flats. The adjudicating authority&#039;s classification as flats was therefore incorrect, and the assessee was held entitled to relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 May 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90103</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>