<?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 (11) TMI 169 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92616</link>
    <description>Tariff classification of lead glass tubings and rods was examined for placement under Heading 7008.10 or 7001.90, with prior Tribunal reasoning indicating that Heading 7008.10 could not be excluded. The Revenue&#039;s reliance on product length and the HSN notes led to the matter being treated as requiring fresh scrutiny on that factual aspect. The Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to re-examine classification after hearing the appellants, and the appeal was allowed by remand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Nov 2011 18:19:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=129677" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (11) TMI 169 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92616</link>
      <description>Tariff classification of lead glass tubings and rods was examined for placement under Heading 7008.10 or 7001.90, with prior Tribunal reasoning indicating that Heading 7008.10 could not be excluded. The Revenue&#039;s reliance on product length and the HSN notes led to the matter being treated as requiring fresh scrutiny on that factual aspect. The Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to re-examine classification after hearing the appellants, and the appeal was allowed by remand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92616</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>