https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262328 The Supreme Court held that the demand raised by the Assistant Commissioner regarding the classification of goods under the Central Excise Tariff Act was erroneous. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeals, noting that neither Section Note 5(f) nor Section Note 5(b) applied to the case as no new item emerged until further processing by another party. The Court found fault in the Commissioner's reliance on Section Note 5(b) instead of 5(f) and upheld the Tribunal's decision based on different grounds. en-us Mon, 13 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Aug 2015 06:39:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262328 The Supreme Court held that the demand raised by the Assistant Commissioner regarding the classification of goods under the Central Excise Tariff Act was erroneous. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeals, noting that neither Section Note 5(f) nor Section Note 5(b) applied to the case as no new item emerged until further processing by another party. The Court found fault in the Commissioner's reliance on Section Note 5(b) instead of 5(f) and upheld the Tribunal's decision based on different grounds. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 13 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262328