<?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 (4) TMI 439 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95625</link>
    <description>Bogie side frames manufactured for fitment in railway coaches were treated as goods specifically covered by Heading 86.07 rather than Heading 73.08. The classification turned on the specific description in Heading 86.07 and earlier Tribunal rulings that similar coach-related items fall within that heading. On that basis, the impugned classification was upheld and the alternative classification under Heading 73.08 was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2011 18:05:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132684" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (4) TMI 439 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95625</link>
      <description>Bogie side frames manufactured for fitment in railway coaches were treated as goods specifically covered by Heading 86.07 rather than Heading 73.08. The classification turned on the specific description in Heading 86.07 and earlier Tribunal rulings that similar coach-related items fall within that heading. On that basis, the impugned classification was upheld and the alternative classification under Heading 73.08 was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95625</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>