<?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>2001 (2) TMI 387 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95505</link>
    <description>Wave trap/line trap classification turned on whether the goods belonged under tariff heading 8541 or 8517, but the earlier binding ruling treating the item as a part of power line carrier communication equipment under 8537 was applied. The Department produced no technical literature to justify a different classification, so the prior classification position prevailed. On that basis, the impugned classification order was maintained and the departmental challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2011 10:22:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132564" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (2) TMI 387 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95505</link>
      <description>Wave trap/line trap classification turned on whether the goods belonged under tariff heading 8541 or 8517, but the earlier binding ruling treating the item as a part of power line carrier communication equipment under 8537 was applied. The Department produced no technical literature to justify a different classification, so the prior classification position prevailed. On that basis, the impugned classification order was maintained and the departmental challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95505</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>