<?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 (8) TMI 187 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92166</link>
    <description>HDPE fabrics coated with LDPE on both sides and sold as tarpaulin were classified under Tariff Heading 3926.90 rather than Heading 63.01. The classification was resolved by applying the cited High Court ruling and the Tribunal&#039;s earlier decision in the respondents&#039; own case, which rejected the competing revenue entry under Heading 63.01. On that basis, the product was treated as an article falling under Heading 3926.90, and the revenue challenge did not succeed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Oct 2011 12:32:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=129227" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (8) TMI 187 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92166</link>
      <description>HDPE fabrics coated with LDPE on both sides and sold as tarpaulin were classified under Tariff Heading 3926.90 rather than Heading 63.01. The classification was resolved by applying the cited High Court ruling and the Tribunal&#039;s earlier decision in the respondents&#039; own case, which rejected the competing revenue entry under Heading 63.01. On that basis, the product was treated as an article falling under Heading 3926.90, and the revenue challenge did not succeed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92166</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>