<?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 454 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345342</link>
    <description>Indian Kattha/Catechu manufactured from the stated inputs was classified under Tariff Item 14049050, not 13021990, because the Tribunal followed an earlier decision on identical goods and accepted the tariff entries as understood in commercial parlance as Indian Kattha. The Revenue&#039;s challenge failed since the same classification issue had already been decided in favour of the lower authorities&#039; view, and no contrary basis was found to disturb that approach.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Jan 2018 14:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=481191" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (7) TMI 454 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345342</link>
      <description>Indian Kattha/Catechu manufactured from the stated inputs was classified under Tariff Item 14049050, not 13021990, because the Tribunal followed an earlier decision on identical goods and accepted the tariff entries as understood in commercial parlance as Indian Kattha. The Revenue&#039;s challenge failed since the same classification issue had already been decided in favour of the lower authorities&#039; view, and no contrary basis was found to disturb that approach.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345342</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>