<?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>1997 (7) TMI 121 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44603</link>
    <description>Elastic rail clips were held to fall under Item 26AA(ia)/25(8) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff rather than Item 68, because a larger Tribunal bench had already authoritatively decided the same classification issue and the Department had accepted that view. The Supreme Court agreed that this was the correct classification on the facts, and the assessee&#039;s classification was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2015 11:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=83132" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (7) TMI 121 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44603</link>
      <description>Elastic rail clips were held to fall under Item 26AA(ia)/25(8) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff rather than Item 68, because a larger Tribunal bench had already authoritatively decided the same classification issue and the Department had accepted that view. The Supreme Court agreed that this was the correct classification on the facts, and the assessee&#039;s classification was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44603</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>