<?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>2005 (10) TMI 321 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116649</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order, dismissing the appeal and relieving the respondents from duty liability and penalty. The disputed product, epoxidised oil obtained from vegetable oil used as plasticisers, was classified under Chapter 15 based on the HSN Explanatory Notes, rejecting the department&#039;s argument for classification under Chapter Heading 38.12.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Jun 2012 15:20:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153647" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (10) TMI 321 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116649</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order, dismissing the appeal and relieving the respondents from duty liability and penalty. The disputed product, epoxidised oil obtained from vegetable oil used as plasticisers, was classified under Chapter 15 based on the HSN Explanatory Notes, rejecting the department&#039;s argument for classification under Chapter Heading 38.12.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116649</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>