<?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 (2) TMI 537 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119072</link>
    <description>The appellant successfully argued that the bricks and tiles manufactured should not be classified as fire clay bricks, as they did not meet the necessary standards and were not used as such in construction. Citing previous Tribunal decisions, the appellant demonstrated that similar items had been treated as clay bricks in the past. The impugned orders were set aside, and all appeals were allowed in favor of the appellant, with any consequential relief granted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Jul 2012 18:05:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=156069" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (2) TMI 537 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119072</link>
      <description>The appellant successfully argued that the bricks and tiles manufactured should not be classified as fire clay bricks, as they did not meet the necessary standards and were not used as such in construction. Citing previous Tribunal decisions, the appellant demonstrated that similar items had been treated as clay bricks in the past. The impugned orders were set aside, and all appeals were allowed in favor of the appellant, with any consequential relief granted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119072</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>