<?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 (9) TMI 395 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97332</link>
    <description>Compensating cables and thermocouple cables were held classifiable under Heading 90.25, consistent with the later Larger Bench view, so the Revenue&#039;s Chapter 85 classification failed. The undervaluation demand also failed because the finding that the assessee and the other concern were not related persons remained undisturbed, and the demand was barred by limitation. On both issues, the impugned order was sustained and the Revenue&#039;s appeal failed in full.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 12:58:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134390" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (9) TMI 395 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97332</link>
      <description>Compensating cables and thermocouple cables were held classifiable under Heading 90.25, consistent with the later Larger Bench view, so the Revenue&#039;s Chapter 85 classification failed. The undervaluation demand also failed because the finding that the assessee and the other concern were not related persons remained undisturbed, and the demand was barred by limitation. On both issues, the impugned order was sustained and the Revenue&#039;s appeal failed in full.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97332</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>