<?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 (7) TMI 111 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48836</link>
    <description>Dutiability and classification of aluminium circles under Item 27(b) were not examined on merits because the appellant did not press the reference issue, and the reference on that point was declined. The matter was then directed to be placed before the concerned Bench for decision on merits. The document records the procedural disposition only and does not state any substantive ruling on classification or duty liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Aug 2010 17:11:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87316" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (7) TMI 111 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48836</link>
      <description>Dutiability and classification of aluminium circles under Item 27(b) were not examined on merits because the appellant did not press the reference issue, and the reference on that point was declined. The matter was then directed to be placed before the concerned Bench for decision on merits. The document records the procedural disposition only and does not state any substantive ruling on classification or duty liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48836</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>