<?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 (9) TMI 422 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107927</link>
    <description>Classification of insulation freezer door, insulation drip tray and insulation pan baffle under the Central Excise Tariff turned on whether they were refrigerator parts under Heading 8418.90 or plastic articles under Heading 3923.19/3923.90. Applying Rule 2(b) and Rule 3(a) of the General Rules for Interpretation, the appellate authority&#039;s own observations suggested Heading 8418.90, while prior Tribunal rulings were found insufficient because the Board&#039;s Circular No. 353/69/97-CX and the interpretative rules had not been properly considered. The trade notice relied on by the assessee was treated as only general guidance. The classification was not finally decided on merits and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2012 17:30:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144944" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (9) TMI 422 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107927</link>
      <description>Classification of insulation freezer door, insulation drip tray and insulation pan baffle under the Central Excise Tariff turned on whether they were refrigerator parts under Heading 8418.90 or plastic articles under Heading 3923.19/3923.90. Applying Rule 2(b) and Rule 3(a) of the General Rules for Interpretation, the appellate authority&#039;s own observations suggested Heading 8418.90, while prior Tribunal rulings were found insufficient because the Board&#039;s Circular No. 353/69/97-CX and the interpretative rules had not been properly considered. The trade notice relied on by the assessee was treated as only general guidance. The classification was not finally decided on merits and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107927</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>