<?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>2004 (3) TMI 296 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53325</link>
    <description>M.S. galvanised wires supplied as telephone wires were held classifiable under Tariff Item 33B(i) of the old Central Excise Tariff because the entry covering electric wires and cables of all sorts was treated as clear and controlling. The Tribunal rejected reliance on an unsupported technical opinion from the departmental witness, accepting only his personal knowledge of procurement and use, not his broader assertions on conductivity and technical distinctions. Once the goods were classified under the dutiable entry, the exemption claimed under Notification No. 206/63-C.E. was unavailable. The limitation plea also failed because manufacture without licence and non-filing of classification lists justified the extended period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Oct 2010 16:18:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=91802" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (3) TMI 296 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53325</link>
      <description>M.S. galvanised wires supplied as telephone wires were held classifiable under Tariff Item 33B(i) of the old Central Excise Tariff because the entry covering electric wires and cables of all sorts was treated as clear and controlling. The Tribunal rejected reliance on an unsupported technical opinion from the departmental witness, accepting only his personal knowledge of procurement and use, not his broader assertions on conductivity and technical distinctions. Once the goods were classified under the dutiable entry, the exemption claimed under Notification No. 206/63-C.E. was unavailable. The limitation plea also failed because manufacture without licence and non-filing of classification lists justified the extended period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53325</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>