<?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>2000 (5) TMI 369 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93692</link>
    <description>Aluminium dross and skimmings arising from the remelting of aluminium ingots and scraps were held classifiable under Heading 26.20 of the Central Excise Tariff Act rather than sub-heading 7602. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Collector (Appeals)&#039; view and relied on cited classification principles concerning such by-products. The Revenue&#039;s challenge therefore failed, and the appellate classification under Heading 26.20 was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Nov 2011 12:20:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130752" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (5) TMI 369 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93692</link>
      <description>Aluminium dross and skimmings arising from the remelting of aluminium ingots and scraps were held classifiable under Heading 26.20 of the Central Excise Tariff Act rather than sub-heading 7602. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Collector (Appeals)&#039; view and relied on cited classification principles concerning such by-products. The Revenue&#039;s challenge therefore failed, and the appellate classification under Heading 26.20 was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93692</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>