<?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>2005 (6) TMI 561 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188058</link>
    <description>Tarpaulin cloth was treated as classifiable under Chapter 5207 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, not under Heading 5906.90. The Tribunal followed an earlier binding classification view that had already examined the same goods and held that the settled tariff entry must be applied consistently. On that basis, the contrary departmental classification could not stand, and the resulting demand failed. The classification issue was therefore resolved in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Nov 2016 15:12:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=448100" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (6) TMI 561 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188058</link>
      <description>Tarpaulin cloth was treated as classifiable under Chapter 5207 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, not under Heading 5906.90. The Tribunal followed an earlier binding classification view that had already examined the same goods and held that the settled tariff entry must be applied consistently. On that basis, the contrary departmental classification could not stand, and the resulting demand failed. The classification issue was therefore resolved in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188058</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>