<?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>1987 (10) TMI 195 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73402</link>
    <description>Imported semi-finished connecting rod and cross forgings were treated as finished components under Interpretative Rule 2(a) because they had the essential character of the completed articles, having been forged to specific drawings, approximate shape and outline, and intended only for finishing into those vehicle parts; the basic customs duty classification was therefore upheld against the assessee. The later departure from the earlier Appellate Collector classification was justified because a subsequent higher forum view provided a cogent basis for revision. For additional customs duty, the correct reference was Item 26AA of the Central Excise Tariff, since the excise tariff did not contain an equivalent to Rule 2(a); on that issue the assessee succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Oct 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 May 2011 16:43:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=111681" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (10) TMI 195 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73402</link>
      <description>Imported semi-finished connecting rod and cross forgings were treated as finished components under Interpretative Rule 2(a) because they had the essential character of the completed articles, having been forged to specific drawings, approximate shape and outline, and intended only for finishing into those vehicle parts; the basic customs duty classification was therefore upheld against the assessee. The later departure from the earlier Appellate Collector classification was justified because a subsequent higher forum view provided a cogent basis for revision. For additional customs duty, the correct reference was Item 26AA of the Central Excise Tariff, since the excise tariff did not contain an equivalent to Rule 2(a); on that issue the assessee succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Oct 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73402</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>