<?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>2014 (9) TMI 1074 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188441</link>
    <description>Classification of micro cellular rubber sheets under the Central Excise Tariff had to be determined on the statutory test prescribed by Chapter Note 4(a) to Chapter 40, and a sample drawn from the finished product with fillers and additives was not a valid basis for that test; the goods were therefore classifiable under heading 4008.11 and not 3921.19. The exemption under Notification No. 18/95-CE was also available because the phrase &quot;used in the manufacture of&quot; refers to intended or ordinary use, and the notification did not require proof of actual end use by buyers. On that basis, the classification-based demand and denial of exemption were not sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Dec 2016 11:11:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=450138" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (9) TMI 1074 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188441</link>
      <description>Classification of micro cellular rubber sheets under the Central Excise Tariff had to be determined on the statutory test prescribed by Chapter Note 4(a) to Chapter 40, and a sample drawn from the finished product with fillers and additives was not a valid basis for that test; the goods were therefore classifiable under heading 4008.11 and not 3921.19. The exemption under Notification No. 18/95-CE was also available because the phrase &quot;used in the manufacture of&quot; refers to intended or ordinary use, and the notification did not require proof of actual end use by buyers. On that basis, the classification-based demand and denial of exemption were not sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188441</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>