<?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>1995 (10) TMI 199 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114152</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant company regarding the classification of wires under Central Excise Headings. The Tribunal determined that the wires should be classified under the headings advocated by the appellant, rejecting the department&#039;s classification based on visual assessment and emphasizing the need for precision in classification. The appellant successfully demonstrated that the product did not meet the criteria for flat rolled products as per the relevant classification notes. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and a miscellaneous application for additional evidence was withdrawn and dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 17:10:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151151" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (10) TMI 199 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114152</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant company regarding the classification of wires under Central Excise Headings. The Tribunal determined that the wires should be classified under the headings advocated by the appellant, rejecting the department&#039;s classification based on visual assessment and emphasizing the need for precision in classification. The appellant successfully demonstrated that the product did not meet the criteria for flat rolled products as per the relevant classification notes. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and a miscellaneous application for additional evidence was withdrawn and dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114152</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>