<?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 277 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90184</link>
    <description>Handloom reeds could be classified as strips under Tariff Item 25(12) only if they conformed to the statutory tariff definition and description. The assessing authority had not examined that statutory fit, and no clear finding showed that the goods matched the tariff entry. On that basis, the appellate view that the classification exercise was incomplete was accepted, and the Revenue&#039;s contention that the goods were strips was not established. The appeal therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2011 12:17:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127246" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (9) TMI 277 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90184</link>
      <description>Handloom reeds could be classified as strips under Tariff Item 25(12) only if they conformed to the statutory tariff definition and description. The assessing authority had not examined that statutory fit, and no clear finding showed that the goods matched the tariff entry. On that basis, the appellate view that the classification exercise was incomplete was accepted, and the Revenue&#039;s contention that the goods were strips was not established. The appeal therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90184</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>