<?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>1995 (8) TMI 195 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91519</link>
    <description>The classification dispute was remanded because the lower authorities had not examined the merits and had relied mainly on approval of an earlier classification list. Fresh consideration was required on the test report and the assessee had to be given an opportunity to meet the proposed classification under the earlier tariff heading. The Assistant Collector was directed to decide the demand de novo after examining the classification issue on merits and hearing the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Aug 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2011 16:45:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=128581" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (8) TMI 195 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91519</link>
      <description>The classification dispute was remanded because the lower authorities had not examined the merits and had relied mainly on approval of an earlier classification list. Fresh consideration was required on the test report and the assessee had to be given an opportunity to meet the proposed classification under the earlier tariff heading. The Assistant Collector was directed to decide the demand de novo after examining the classification issue on merits and hearing the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Aug 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91519</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>