<?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 590 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96994</link>
    <description>Classification of non-woven carpets with an exposed polypropylene surface was held to fall under sub-heading 5703.20. The Tribunal noted that the same product had already been classified under that sub-heading in the respondents&#039; earlier appeal, and no fresh ground was shown to justify a different view. The dispute was therefore confined to tariff classification, and the Revenue&#039;s appeals were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2012 15:39:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134052" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (5) TMI 590 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96994</link>
      <description>Classification of non-woven carpets with an exposed polypropylene surface was held to fall under sub-heading 5703.20. The Tribunal noted that the same product had already been classified under that sub-heading in the respondents&#039; earlier appeal, and no fresh ground was shown to justify a different view. The dispute was therefore confined to tariff classification, and the Revenue&#039;s appeals were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96994</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>