<?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>2000 (2) TMI 95 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45396</link>
    <description>Ice-boxes were treated as household articles of plastics rather than furniture because they lacked the ordinary attributes of furniture and were used for keeping ice. Classification under Heading 94.03 was therefore rejected, and Heading 39.24 was held to be the proper tariff heading. As the Tribunal had decided only the classification issue and had not examined the remaining contentions raised before it, those unresolved questions were required to be considered on remand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Jul 2010 13:07:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=83925" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (2) TMI 95 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45396</link>
      <description>Ice-boxes were treated as household articles of plastics rather than furniture because they lacked the ordinary attributes of furniture and were used for keeping ice. Classification under Heading 94.03 was therefore rejected, and Heading 39.24 was held to be the proper tariff heading. As the Tribunal had decided only the classification issue and had not examined the remaining contentions raised before it, those unresolved questions were required to be considered on remand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45396</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>