<?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 (10) TMI 1095 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109146</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication by the Commissioner to determine if the product met the criteria for classification as paint. The decision on marketability, shelf life, and the invocation of the extended period under Section 11A (1) was deferred pending the Commissioner&#039;s classification ruling. The need for proper scrutiny of technical aspects and adherence to legal procedures was emphasized in the Tribunal&#039;s decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Apr 2012 11:37:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146163" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (10) TMI 1095 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109146</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication by the Commissioner to determine if the product met the criteria for classification as paint. The decision on marketability, shelf life, and the invocation of the extended period under Section 11A (1) was deferred pending the Commissioner&#039;s classification ruling. The need for proper scrutiny of technical aspects and adherence to legal procedures was emphasized in the Tribunal&#039;s decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109146</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>