<?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 (9) TMI 633 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124161</link>
    <description>Hook and loop tapes were disputed as either narrow woven fabrics under heading 5806.10 or snap fasteners under heading 9606.90. Classification was to be determined from the tariff headings read with the relevant Chapter Notes, and the decisive question was whether the finished tapes met the definition of narrow woven fabrics under Chapter Note 6 to Chapter 58, including selvedges on both edges and other prescribed parameters. As no laboratory verification was available on that factual point, the existing classification finding was not treated as conclusive. The matter was remanded for de novo adjudication with directions to obtain laboratory opinion, reconsider classification after that report, hear the assessee, and levy interest if duty is ultimately confirmed under a heading other than 5806.10.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2012 12:09:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=161118" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (9) TMI 633 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124161</link>
      <description>Hook and loop tapes were disputed as either narrow woven fabrics under heading 5806.10 or snap fasteners under heading 9606.90. Classification was to be determined from the tariff headings read with the relevant Chapter Notes, and the decisive question was whether the finished tapes met the definition of narrow woven fabrics under Chapter Note 6 to Chapter 58, including selvedges on both edges and other prescribed parameters. As no laboratory verification was available on that factual point, the existing classification finding was not treated as conclusive. The matter was remanded for de novo adjudication with directions to obtain laboratory opinion, reconsider classification after that report, hear the assessee, and levy interest if duty is ultimately confirmed under a heading other than 5806.10.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124161</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>