<?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 (9) TMI 336 - CEGAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94063</link>
    <description>Goods used as master plates for printing aluminium labels, rather than exposed photographic plates, were treated as correctly classifiable under Heading 37.01. The contrary description in the appellate order was regarded as a typing mistake, so the order-in-appeal was set aside and the original classification was restored. The Revenue&#039;s classification under Heading 37.01 was therefore sustained on the basis of the actual nature and use of the goods.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:47:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131123" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (9) TMI 336 - CEGAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94063</link>
      <description>Goods used as master plates for printing aluminium labels, rather than exposed photographic plates, were treated as correctly classifiable under Heading 37.01. The contrary description in the appellate order was regarded as a typing mistake, so the order-in-appeal was set aside and the original classification was restored. The Revenue&#039;s classification under Heading 37.01 was therefore sustained on the basis of the actual nature and use of the goods.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94063</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>