<?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>1985 (6) TMI 142 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72526</link>
    <description>Imported Folly Balloon Catheters were treated as suction catheters falling within Heading 32 of Notification No. 208/Cus/81 because an earlier Tribunal decision between the same parties had already covered the identical goods and issue. The Collector (Appeals) relied on that prior reasoning, and no distinguishing material was shown to displace it. The lower appellate authority&#039;s classification was therefore sustained, and the customs challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jun 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 12:14:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=110805" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (6) TMI 142 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72526</link>
      <description>Imported Folly Balloon Catheters were treated as suction catheters falling within Heading 32 of Notification No. 208/Cus/81 because an earlier Tribunal decision between the same parties had already covered the identical goods and issue. The Collector (Appeals) relied on that prior reasoning, and no distinguishing material was shown to displace it. The lower appellate authority&#039;s classification was therefore sustained, and the customs challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jun 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72526</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>