<?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 (10) TMI 413 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95025</link>
    <description>Tarfelt was treated as classifiable under sub-heading 5909 of the Central Excise Tariff and covered by Notification No. 53/65-C.E. because the same issues had already been decided in the assessee&#039;s favour in an earlier Tribunal ruling on the same product. That prior binding determination was accepted as settled, so the later appeal called for no interference and the classification and exemption benefit were maintained in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2011 12:59:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132084" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (10) TMI 413 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95025</link>
      <description>Tarfelt was treated as classifiable under sub-heading 5909 of the Central Excise Tariff and covered by Notification No. 53/65-C.E. because the same issues had already been decided in the assessee&#039;s favour in an earlier Tribunal ruling on the same product. That prior binding determination was accepted as settled, so the later appeal called for no interference and the classification and exemption benefit were maintained in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95025</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>