<?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 487 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345375</link>
    <description>Lead glass tubings used for electrical lamps were examined for tariff classification under Central Excise Tariff Sub-heading 7008.90 versus 7001.90. The dispute centred on whether further processing, including annealing, diameter sorting, precise cutting to specified length, and fire polishing of ends, made the goods classifiable as worked glass products. On the factual material, the appellate authority treated the processed tubings as falling under Sub-heading 7008.90 and held that the earlier direction for re-examination did not require another remand. The classification was upheld and a further remand was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Jan 2018 14:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=481420" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (7) TMI 487 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345375</link>
      <description>Lead glass tubings used for electrical lamps were examined for tariff classification under Central Excise Tariff Sub-heading 7008.90 versus 7001.90. The dispute centred on whether further processing, including annealing, diameter sorting, precise cutting to specified length, and fire polishing of ends, made the goods classifiable as worked glass products. On the factual material, the appellate authority treated the processed tubings as falling under Sub-heading 7008.90 and held that the earlier direction for re-examination did not require another remand. The classification was upheld and a further remand was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345375</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>