<?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 (7) TMI 676 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124031</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the first Appellate order classifying goods under Heading 33.03, rejecting the Revenue&#039;s appeal seeking classification under Heading 33.07 based on the product&#039;s purpose for the human body. The Tribunal found the original classification appropriate, emphasizing the lack of material supporting an alternative classification and the irrelevance of user criteria without proper evidence. Consequently, the Revenue&#039;s appeal was deemed unsuccessful.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Sep 2012 17:22:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=160988" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 676 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124031</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the first Appellate order classifying goods under Heading 33.03, rejecting the Revenue&#039;s appeal seeking classification under Heading 33.07 based on the product&#039;s purpose for the human body. The Tribunal found the original classification appropriate, emphasizing the lack of material supporting an alternative classification and the irrelevance of user criteria without proper evidence. Consequently, the Revenue&#039;s appeal was deemed unsuccessful.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124031</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>