<?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 685 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98910</link>
    <description>Hub with blades, or blade assembly, was not classifiable as an electric fan under Tariff Item 33(2) of the Central Excise Tariff. The earlier Tribunal view treating such goods as electric fans had already been set aside by the Supreme Court, which held that blade assembly does not fall within that tariff entry. In light of that authoritative ruling, the classification basis of the adjudication failed and the duty demand founded on it could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:39:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=135967" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (4) TMI 685 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98910</link>
      <description>Hub with blades, or blade assembly, was not classifiable as an electric fan under Tariff Item 33(2) of the Central Excise Tariff. The earlier Tribunal view treating such goods as electric fans had already been set aside by the Supreme Court, which held that blade assembly does not fall within that tariff entry. In light of that authoritative ruling, the classification basis of the adjudication failed and the duty demand founded on it could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98910</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>