<?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>2015 (12) TMI 322 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269018</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the classification of rubberized tyre cord fabric, correcting the tariff heading from 59.02 to 59.06. On the issue of marketability for excise duty, the Tribunal upheld the decision that the Revenue failed to prove the marketability of both rubberized tyre cord fabric and rubber tread compound. The judgment emphasized the necessity of evidence and precedent in establishing marketability for excise duty purposes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Dec 2015 11:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=407892" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (12) TMI 322 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269018</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the classification of rubberized tyre cord fabric, correcting the tariff heading from 59.02 to 59.06. On the issue of marketability for excise duty, the Tribunal upheld the decision that the Revenue failed to prove the marketability of both rubberized tyre cord fabric and rubber tread compound. The judgment emphasized the necessity of evidence and precedent in establishing marketability for excise duty purposes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269018</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>