<?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 (7) TMI 132 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91883</link>
    <description>Conflicting classifications of sewing thread polypropylene, not texturised, across different periods and a chemist&#039;s opinion supporting Chapter Heading 5402.00 showed that the classification position was not uniform. Fresh consideration by the jurisdictional authority was therefore required, and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision on classification in accordance with law. The appellants were to be given an opportunity of personal hearing on remand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:38:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=128944" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (7) TMI 132 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91883</link>
      <description>Conflicting classifications of sewing thread polypropylene, not texturised, across different periods and a chemist&#039;s opinion supporting Chapter Heading 5402.00 showed that the classification position was not uniform. Fresh consideration by the jurisdictional authority was therefore required, and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision on classification in accordance with law. The appellants were to be given an opportunity of personal hearing on remand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91883</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>