<?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>1988 (4) TMI 234 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73850</link>
    <description>Metallised polyester films imported under the dispute were treated as covered by Notification No. 228/76-Cus. dated 2-8-1976. The Tribunal relied on earlier Tribunal orders and several High Court decisions that had already resolved the same controversy in favour of exemption, and it followed that consistent line of authority rather than departing from it. On that basis, the exemption was held available to the imported films and the appeals did not succeed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Jun 2011 18:41:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=112129" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (4) TMI 234 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73850</link>
      <description>Metallised polyester films imported under the dispute were treated as covered by Notification No. 228/76-Cus. dated 2-8-1976. The Tribunal relied on earlier Tribunal orders and several High Court decisions that had already resolved the same controversy in favour of exemption, and it followed that consistent line of authority rather than departing from it. On that basis, the exemption was held available to the imported films and the appeals did not succeed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73850</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>