<?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 (4) TMI 44 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4286</link>
    <description>The dispute turned on tariff classification of the manufactured product for exemption under Entry 57 of Notification No. 4/97. The product was examined against competing Central Excise Tariff headings and was found not to fall under the headings claimed by the assessee; it was classified under Heading 39.16, which lay outside the exemption entry. As the product did not fall within the covered headings, the exemption could not be claimed, and the duty demand was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=43629" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (4) TMI 44 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4286</link>
      <description>The dispute turned on tariff classification of the manufactured product for exemption under Entry 57 of Notification No. 4/97. The product was examined against competing Central Excise Tariff headings and was found not to fall under the headings claimed by the assessee; it was classified under Heading 39.16, which lay outside the exemption entry. As the product did not fall within the covered headings, the exemption could not be claimed, and the duty demand was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4286</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>