<?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>2006 (7) TMI 396 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118443</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that toothbrush handles made of plastic are appropriately classified under sub-heading 3926.90, not under Tariff Heading 96.03. The handles were deemed non-excisable goods due to their lack of marketability, as they were not commercially known products available in the market. Therefore, the handles were not subject to excise duty, and the appeals and cross-objections challenging their classification and marketability were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Jun 2012 16:50:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=155440" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (7) TMI 396 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118443</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that toothbrush handles made of plastic are appropriately classified under sub-heading 3926.90, not under Tariff Heading 96.03. The handles were deemed non-excisable goods due to their lack of marketability, as they were not commercially known products available in the market. Therefore, the handles were not subject to excise duty, and the appeals and cross-objections challenging their classification and marketability were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118443</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>