<?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>2006 (4) TMI 27 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=631</link>
    <description>The Tribunal classified the plastic spring bangles as &#039;Toys&#039; under CSH 9503.00 instead of &#039;Articles of Plastic&#039; under CSH 3926.90 as contended by the Revenue. The duty demand, penalty, and interest were deemed unjustified, leading to the appeal being allowed with consequential relief. The Tribunal emphasized that the items were amusement articles for children, distinct from traditional bangles, and therefore, the impugned order lacked merit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2008 16:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40076" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (4) TMI 27 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=631</link>
      <description>The Tribunal classified the plastic spring bangles as &#039;Toys&#039; under CSH 9503.00 instead of &#039;Articles of Plastic&#039; under CSH 3926.90 as contended by the Revenue. The duty demand, penalty, and interest were deemed unjustified, leading to the appeal being allowed with consequential relief. The Tribunal emphasized that the items were amusement articles for children, distinct from traditional bangles, and therefore, the impugned order lacked merit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=631</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>