<?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 (1) TMI 260 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92917</link>
    <description>Classification of seven machines used to manufacture U-form polyurethane products was examined under Tariff Heading 84.77 versus 84.79. The lower appellate authority relied on the HSN Note to Heading 84.79 and Note 7 to Chapter 84, and classified the machines under Heading 84.77. The Tribunal accepted that reasoning, found the order well reasoned and supported by the record, and upheld classification under Heading 84.77. The challenge to that classification failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Nov 2011 11:06:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=129978" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (1) TMI 260 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92917</link>
      <description>Classification of seven machines used to manufacture U-form polyurethane products was examined under Tariff Heading 84.77 versus 84.79. The lower appellate authority relied on the HSN Note to Heading 84.79 and Note 7 to Chapter 84, and classified the machines under Heading 84.77. The Tribunal accepted that reasoning, found the order well reasoned and supported by the record, and upheld classification under Heading 84.77. The challenge to that classification failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92917</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>