<?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>2005 (4) TMI 71 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47326</link>
    <description>Tariff classification of domestic electric flour mills required independent consideration of the later CBEC circular indicating Heading 8437. Classification under Heading 8509 could not be sustained merely by mechanically following an earlier Tribunal view when the subsequent circular materially affected the classification issue. As the available evidence and the circular had not been examined afresh, the Tribunal&#039;s order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the appropriate Assistant Commissioner for fresh classification determination. No conclusion was reached on the substantive merits of the competing tariff headings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2014 12:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=85845" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (4) TMI 71 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47326</link>
      <description>Tariff classification of domestic electric flour mills required independent consideration of the later CBEC circular indicating Heading 8437. Classification under Heading 8509 could not be sustained merely by mechanically following an earlier Tribunal view when the subsequent circular materially affected the classification issue. As the available evidence and the circular had not been examined afresh, the Tribunal&#039;s order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the appropriate Assistant Commissioner for fresh classification determination. No conclusion was reached on the substantive merits of the competing tariff headings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47326</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>