<?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 (5) TMI 511 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114457</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that lean gas should be classified under Tariff Heading 2711.21, not 2711.29, following the precedent set in Oil India Ltd. v. CCE. The Tribunal criticized the Revenue for not adhering to established legal principles, leading to unnecessary harassment of assessees. As a result, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants, setting aside the impugned order and directing awareness and compliance with the decision to the Chairman, CBEC.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 May 2012 17:49:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151456" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (5) TMI 511 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114457</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that lean gas should be classified under Tariff Heading 2711.21, not 2711.29, following the precedent set in Oil India Ltd. v. CCE. The Tribunal criticized the Revenue for not adhering to established legal principles, leading to unnecessary harassment of assessees. As a result, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants, setting aside the impugned order and directing awareness and compliance with the decision to the Chairman, CBEC.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114457</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>