<?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>2009 (5) TMI 649 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125492</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Department&#039;s classification of an excisable product under Chapter 8536.90.90, rejecting the appellants&#039; argument for classification under Heading 4810.39.20 and 4805.93.00. It found that different factual situations can justify a different classification and allowed the stay application for the penalty but dismissed it for the demand of duty and interest. The appellants were directed to deposit the balance amount within twelve weeks.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Oct 2012 16:45:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=162408" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (5) TMI 649 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125492</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Department&#039;s classification of an excisable product under Chapter 8536.90.90, rejecting the appellants&#039; argument for classification under Heading 4810.39.20 and 4805.93.00. It found that different factual situations can justify a different classification and allowed the stay application for the penalty but dismissed it for the demand of duty and interest. The appellants were directed to deposit the balance amount within twelve weeks.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125492</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>