<?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>1988 (3) TMI 61 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42168</link>
    <description>The High Court set aside the Government&#039;s revision order and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on the classification of &quot;Decoplast.&quot; The Tribunal concluded that &quot;Decoplast&quot; should be classified as plastic emulsion paint under Tariff Item 14(I)(3)(iv) based on its composition and trade understanding, dismissing the appeal under Section 35L of the Act due to lack of rebuttal evidence from the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2014 13:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80697" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (3) TMI 61 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42168</link>
      <description>The High Court set aside the Government&#039;s revision order and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on the classification of &quot;Decoplast.&quot; The Tribunal concluded that &quot;Decoplast&quot; should be classified as plastic emulsion paint under Tariff Item 14(I)(3)(iv) based on its composition and trade understanding, dismissing the appeal under Section 35L of the Act due to lack of rebuttal evidence from the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42168</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>