<?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 (6) TMI 301 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107729</link>
    <description>Light Aluminium Rolling Oil was classifiable under the specific tariff entry for kerosene and aviation turbine fuel because it satisfied the objective physical characteristics in the heading, including smoke point and final boiling point requirements. The expression &quot;that is to say&quot; was treated as an exhaustive description of the covered oils, so the product could not be moved to the residuary sub-heading merely because it was marketed or known as rolling oil rather than kerosene in common parlance. Classification under sub-heading 2710.29 was upheld and the residuary classification under sub-heading 2710.99 was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2012 12:13:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144746" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (6) TMI 301 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107729</link>
      <description>Light Aluminium Rolling Oil was classifiable under the specific tariff entry for kerosene and aviation turbine fuel because it satisfied the objective physical characteristics in the heading, including smoke point and final boiling point requirements. The expression &quot;that is to say&quot; was treated as an exhaustive description of the covered oils, so the product could not be moved to the residuary sub-heading merely because it was marketed or known as rolling oil rather than kerosene in common parlance. Classification under sub-heading 2710.29 was upheld and the residuary classification under sub-heading 2710.99 was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107729</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>