<?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 (10) TMI 430 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110047</link>
    <description>Copper-coated steel wires were treated as steel wire coated with copper for central excise classification, because the Board&#039;s clarification and the Chemical Examiner&#039;s report both supported that description and did not support the Department&#039;s alternative classification. On that material, classification under Chapter 72 was held to be consistent with the record, and no basis was found to disturb the appellate order. The Revenue&#039;s challenge therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:19:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147063" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (10) TMI 430 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110047</link>
      <description>Copper-coated steel wires were treated as steel wire coated with copper for central excise classification, because the Board&#039;s clarification and the Chemical Examiner&#039;s report both supported that description and did not support the Department&#039;s alternative classification. On that material, classification under Chapter 72 was held to be consistent with the record, and no basis was found to disturb the appellate order. The Revenue&#039;s challenge therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110047</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>