<?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 (2) TMI 321 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90455</link>
    <description>Forged steel articles remained classifiable as forgings under Heading 72.08, because processes such as cleaning, heat treatment, machining, trimming, annealing, tempering, inspection and shot blasting did not alter their essential character. The Tribunal followed prior authority, including a Larger Bench view approved by the Supreme Court, that ordinary finishing or heat-treatment operations incidental to manufacture do not by themselves move forged goods into the category of finished articles of iron and steel under Heading 73.08. The classification under Heading 72.08 also preserved entitlement to the consequential benefit of Notification No. 208/83-C.E., and the departmental challenge failed on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Oct 2011 14:56:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127517" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (2) TMI 321 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90455</link>
      <description>Forged steel articles remained classifiable as forgings under Heading 72.08, because processes such as cleaning, heat treatment, machining, trimming, annealing, tempering, inspection and shot blasting did not alter their essential character. The Tribunal followed prior authority, including a Larger Bench view approved by the Supreme Court, that ordinary finishing or heat-treatment operations incidental to manufacture do not by themselves move forged goods into the category of finished articles of iron and steel under Heading 73.08. The classification under Heading 72.08 also preserved entitlement to the consequential benefit of Notification No. 208/83-C.E., and the departmental challenge failed on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90455</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>