<?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>1983 (5) TMI 122 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72898</link>
    <description>Stainless steel goods imported as sheets in the invoice and bill of entry could not be treated as plates for concessional duty under Notification No. 44/71-Cus. The goods were described by the foreign supplier and the importer as sheets, and their thickness was below 5 mm, matching ISI specifications for sheets rather than plates. In the absence of any statutory definition in the Act, tariff or notification, classification had to follow ordinary trade and industry understanding as reflected in accepted specifications. A departmental circular could not override the goods&#039; description or the applicable specifications, so the claim for re-assessment and concessional benefit failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 May 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 May 2011 17:05:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=111177" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (5) TMI 122 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72898</link>
      <description>Stainless steel goods imported as sheets in the invoice and bill of entry could not be treated as plates for concessional duty under Notification No. 44/71-Cus. The goods were described by the foreign supplier and the importer as sheets, and their thickness was below 5 mm, matching ISI specifications for sheets rather than plates. In the absence of any statutory definition in the Act, tariff or notification, classification had to follow ordinary trade and industry understanding as reflected in accepted specifications. A departmental circular could not override the goods&#039; description or the applicable specifications, so the claim for re-assessment and concessional benefit failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 May 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72898</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>