<?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>1995 (5) TMI 30 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44007</link>
    <description>Excise classification of thrust washers, thrust half-washers and wrapped bushes could not rest on a trade notice or assumed functional similarity with thin-walled bearings. The SC held that a trade notice has no binding force by itself, and that classification under the exemption notification required reliable material showing the goods actually answered the tariff description. On the record, the Court found it factually unsafe to conclude that the goods conformed to the relevant Indian Standard, and declined to determine the technical classification without a proper factual basis. The High Court and departmental orders were therefore not sustained, and the matter was sent back for reconsideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 May 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2014 20:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=82536" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (5) TMI 30 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44007</link>
      <description>Excise classification of thrust washers, thrust half-washers and wrapped bushes could not rest on a trade notice or assumed functional similarity with thin-walled bearings. The SC held that a trade notice has no binding force by itself, and that classification under the exemption notification required reliable material showing the goods actually answered the tariff description. On the record, the Court found it factually unsafe to conclude that the goods conformed to the relevant Indian Standard, and declined to determine the technical classification without a proper factual basis. The High Court and departmental orders were therefore not sustained, and the matter was sent back for reconsideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 May 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44007</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>