<?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 (6) TMI 403 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123724</link>
    <description>Classification of rectified spirit suitable for use as fuel in I.C. engines was held to remain under erstwhile tariff item 6(ii) of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Act, 1944 and later under sub-heading 2204.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, because the same product and assessee had already been covered by an earlier Tribunal decision that had attained finality. In the absence of any distinguishing factual feature, judicial discipline required the authorities to follow the settled classification, and the demand could not be revived. The lower authorities were therefore justified in accepting the settled position and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:52:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=160685" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (6) TMI 403 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123724</link>
      <description>Classification of rectified spirit suitable for use as fuel in I.C. engines was held to remain under erstwhile tariff item 6(ii) of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Act, 1944 and later under sub-heading 2204.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, because the same product and assessee had already been covered by an earlier Tribunal decision that had attained finality. In the absence of any distinguishing factual feature, judicial discipline required the authorities to follow the settled classification, and the demand could not be revived. The lower authorities were therefore justified in accepting the settled position and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123724</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>