<?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>2004 (2) TMI 422 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110904</link>
    <description>Micro cellular rubber sheets were discussed in a tariff classification dispute between Heading 4008.11 and Heading 3921.19 under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The text notes that classification depended on test reports and the requirements of Chapter 40, including the need for proper samples. It states that a prior remand direction for retesting was binding, that the adjudicating authority should not have relied on the earlier discarded report, and that the Revenue had to independently prove the proposed classification. On that basis, the assessee&#039;s declared classification was accepted and consequential relief followed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 11:08:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147920" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (2) TMI 422 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110904</link>
      <description>Micro cellular rubber sheets were discussed in a tariff classification dispute between Heading 4008.11 and Heading 3921.19 under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The text notes that classification depended on test reports and the requirements of Chapter 40, including the need for proper samples. It states that a prior remand direction for retesting was binding, that the adjudicating authority should not have relied on the earlier discarded report, and that the Revenue had to independently prove the proposed classification. On that basis, the assessee&#039;s declared classification was accepted and consequential relief followed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110904</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>