<?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>1997 (6) TMI 233 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90724</link>
    <description>Harrow discs and hammers were treated as forged products for tariff classification rather than residuary goods under Tariff Item 68. The Tribunal followed its earlier order in the assessee&#039;s own case, which had already determined that these goods fell under Tariff Item 26AA and later Tariff Item 25(8). On that basis, the impugned order was set aside and classification in favour of the assessee was affirmed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Oct 2011 10:41:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127786" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (6) TMI 233 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90724</link>
      <description>Harrow discs and hammers were treated as forged products for tariff classification rather than residuary goods under Tariff Item 68. The Tribunal followed its earlier order in the assessee&#039;s own case, which had already determined that these goods fell under Tariff Item 26AA and later Tariff Item 25(8). On that basis, the impugned order was set aside and classification in favour of the assessee was affirmed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90724</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>