<?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>1999 (2) TMI 171 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90291</link>
    <description>Laminated safety glass with actual thickness ranging from 6 mm to 6.38 mm, and from 8 mm to 8.38 mm, was required to be assessed on the nominal thickness of 6 mm and 8 mm under the applicable notification. The Tribunal followed its earlier ruling and the CBEC circular, holding that where the thickness falls within the specified range, the nominal thickness governs duty computation. On that basis, the duty demand could not be sustained and was set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2011 18:20:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127353" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (2) TMI 171 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90291</link>
      <description>Laminated safety glass with actual thickness ranging from 6 mm to 6.38 mm, and from 8 mm to 8.38 mm, was required to be assessed on the nominal thickness of 6 mm and 8 mm under the applicable notification. The Tribunal followed its earlier ruling and the CBEC circular, holding that where the thickness falls within the specified range, the nominal thickness governs duty computation. On that basis, the duty demand could not be sustained and was set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90291</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>