<?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>2008 (5) TMI 517 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123694</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the wonder marble slabs should be classified under Chapter 25 instead of Chapter 68 as claimed by the Commissioner. The additional processes applied to the slabs were deemed to be for repairing defects and ensuring protection during handling and transportation, rather than altering the nature of the product. As the repaired slabs continued to be known, used, and characterized the same as prime quality slabs, the classification under Chapter 25 was upheld. The Tribunal waived the pre-deposit of duty and interest, acknowledging the strong case presented by the applicants and expedited the hearing due to the recurring classification issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Sep 2012 13:29:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=160655" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (5) TMI 517 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123694</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the wonder marble slabs should be classified under Chapter 25 instead of Chapter 68 as claimed by the Commissioner. The additional processes applied to the slabs were deemed to be for repairing defects and ensuring protection during handling and transportation, rather than altering the nature of the product. As the repaired slabs continued to be known, used, and characterized the same as prime quality slabs, the classification under Chapter 25 was upheld. The Tribunal waived the pre-deposit of duty and interest, acknowledging the strong case presented by the applicants and expedited the hearing due to the recurring classification issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123694</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>