<?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>2003 (5) TMI 284 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107535</link>
    <description>Development tanks for dental and medical X-ray, also described as automatic film processors, were examined for tariff classification under Heading 90.22 or Heading 90.10. On remand, the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority accepted the claim that the goods fell under Heading 90.22, and the Revenue accepted that factual position before the Tribunal. The goods were therefore treated as classifiable under Heading 90.22 rather than Heading 90.10.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Mar 2012 12:28:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144552" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (5) TMI 284 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107535</link>
      <description>Development tanks for dental and medical X-ray, also described as automatic film processors, were examined for tariff classification under Heading 90.22 or Heading 90.10. On remand, the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority accepted the claim that the goods fell under Heading 90.22, and the Revenue accepted that factual position before the Tribunal. The goods were therefore treated as classifiable under Heading 90.22 rather than Heading 90.10.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107535</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>