<?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>2016 (9) TMI 132 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331871</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled against classifying Residual Crude Petroleum Oil (RCPO)/Residual Fuel Oil (RFO)/Residual Bottom Oil (RBO) under chapter heading 27101950 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, instead rejecting the Revenue&#039;s classification as fuel oil. The Tribunal emphasized that the item did not meet the definition of fuel oil as per the Tariff. Additionally, discrepancies in goods were noted in the cases of the appellants, leading to the reversal of certain orders due to factual inaccuracies and incorrect treatment of shortages as excess quantities. The Tribunal upheld decisions where appellants did not contest confirmed duties.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2017 12:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=440006" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 132 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331871</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled against classifying Residual Crude Petroleum Oil (RCPO)/Residual Fuel Oil (RFO)/Residual Bottom Oil (RBO) under chapter heading 27101950 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, instead rejecting the Revenue&#039;s classification as fuel oil. The Tribunal emphasized that the item did not meet the definition of fuel oil as per the Tariff. Additionally, discrepancies in goods were noted in the cases of the appellants, leading to the reversal of certain orders due to factual inaccuracies and incorrect treatment of shortages as excess quantities. The Tribunal upheld decisions where appellants did not contest confirmed duties.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331871</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>