<?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>1984 (10) TMI 138 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72906</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, ruled in favor of the Appellants in a case involving the classification of imported liquid paraffin USP grade under the Central Excise Tariff. The Tribunal held that the goods should be assessed under Item 68 CET, exempt from additional Customs duty, based on manufacturer evidence and the lack of specific test reports from the Department to justify classification under Item 8 CET. A dissenting opinion emphasized the importance of Customs test results over supplier literature and upheld the original classification under Item 8 CET. The judgment highlighted the significance of test results and burden of proof in proper assessment under the Central Excise Tariff.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 May 2011 17:36:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=111185" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (10) TMI 138 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72906</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, ruled in favor of the Appellants in a case involving the classification of imported liquid paraffin USP grade under the Central Excise Tariff. The Tribunal held that the goods should be assessed under Item 68 CET, exempt from additional Customs duty, based on manufacturer evidence and the lack of specific test reports from the Department to justify classification under Item 8 CET. A dissenting opinion emphasized the importance of Customs test results over supplier literature and upheld the original classification under Item 8 CET. The judgment highlighted the significance of test results and burden of proof in proper assessment under the Central Excise Tariff.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72906</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>