<?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 (12) TMI 551 - CESTAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115810</link>
    <description>Proper tariff classification of a ladle car was examined under the Central Excise Tariff. The item was treated as specifically covered by sub-heading 8454.00, with support drawn from the HSN Explanatory Notes for that entry. The classification adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) was found to be correct, and no illegality was identified in that approach. Classification under sub-heading 8609.00 was therefore not accepted, and the Revenue&#039;s contrary contention failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Jun 2012 13:15:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152808" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (12) TMI 551 - CESTAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115810</link>
      <description>Proper tariff classification of a ladle car was examined under the Central Excise Tariff. The item was treated as specifically covered by sub-heading 8454.00, with support drawn from the HSN Explanatory Notes for that entry. The classification adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) was found to be correct, and no illegality was identified in that approach. Classification under sub-heading 8609.00 was therefore not accepted, and the Revenue&#039;s contrary contention failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115810</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>