<?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 (8) TMI 296 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53660</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled that Mechanical Equipments for a Hot Strip Mill should not be classified as a complete rolling mill under sub-heading 8455.10 but differentiated between auxiliary equipment and parts, remanding the decision to the Commissioner (Appeals) for further assessment. The case underscored the significance of statutory rules of interpretation and HSN notes in determining the classification of goods under the Central Excise Tariff Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Oct 2010 15:05:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92137" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (8) TMI 296 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53660</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled that Mechanical Equipments for a Hot Strip Mill should not be classified as a complete rolling mill under sub-heading 8455.10 but differentiated between auxiliary equipment and parts, remanding the decision to the Commissioner (Appeals) for further assessment. The case underscored the significance of statutory rules of interpretation and HSN notes in determining the classification of goods under the Central Excise Tariff Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53660</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>