<?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 (3) TMI 345 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74383</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the countervailing duty originally levied under Tariff Item 68 was correct for the imported Cinematographic Camera. It found that Cinematographic Cameras did not fall under Tariff Item 37C as argued by the respondent, noting the distinction between Photographic and Cinematographic Cameras. The Tribunal relied on the Finance Minister&#039;s statement and legal classification to set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Jun 2011 15:20:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=112662" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (3) TMI 345 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74383</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the countervailing duty originally levied under Tariff Item 68 was correct for the imported Cinematographic Camera. It found that Cinematographic Cameras did not fall under Tariff Item 37C as argued by the respondent, noting the distinction between Photographic and Cinematographic Cameras. The Tribunal relied on the Finance Minister&#039;s statement and legal classification to set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74383</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>