<?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 (8) TMI 480 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112600</link>
    <description>Classification of tube repairing compound depended on its actual physical form. The product was found to be a square sheet of unvulcanised rubber, not a profile shape or other article covered by Heading 40.06. On that basis, Heading 40.06 was held inapplicable and the product fell under Heading 40.05. As a result, the exemption under Notification No. 8/99-C.E. was not available because it applied only to the correct tariff classification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2012 17:29:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=149616" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (8) TMI 480 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112600</link>
      <description>Classification of tube repairing compound depended on its actual physical form. The product was found to be a square sheet of unvulcanised rubber, not a profile shape or other article covered by Heading 40.06. On that basis, Heading 40.06 was held inapplicable and the product fell under Heading 40.05. As a result, the exemption under Notification No. 8/99-C.E. was not available because it applied only to the correct tariff classification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112600</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>