<?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>2003 (9) TMI 144 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52051</link>
    <description>The appeal succeeded as the Tribunal rejected the classification under Heading No. 84.15 for &quot;heater control lever&quot; and &quot;panel heater control,&quot; determining the appropriate classification under Heading No. 8479.90. Penalties under Section 11AC were set aside, and there were no grounds for demanding differential duty or invoking the extended period of limitation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Sep 2010 13:55:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90529" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (9) TMI 144 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52051</link>
      <description>The appeal succeeded as the Tribunal rejected the classification under Heading No. 84.15 for &quot;heater control lever&quot; and &quot;panel heater control,&quot; determining the appropriate classification under Heading No. 8479.90. Penalties under Section 11AC were set aside, and there were no grounds for demanding differential duty or invoking the extended period of limitation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52051</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>