<?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>2017 (7) TMI 289 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345177</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeals and upheld the classification of the goods as Other Fertilizers under CETH 3105.90. The decision was based on the goods containing essential nutrients and nitrogen, leading to their classification as micronutrients rather than Plant Growth Regulators under CETH 3808. The Tribunal&#039;s analysis considered historical circulars and legal principles to determine the appropriate classification under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=480700" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (7) TMI 289 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345177</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeals and upheld the classification of the goods as Other Fertilizers under CETH 3105.90. The decision was based on the goods containing essential nutrients and nitrogen, leading to their classification as micronutrients rather than Plant Growth Regulators under CETH 3808. The Tribunal&#039;s analysis considered historical circulars and legal principles to determine the appropriate classification under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345177</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>