<?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 (8) TMI 333 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74479</link>
    <description>Goods were held classifiable under T.I. 85.18/27(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, the Department&#039;s classification being accepted on the basis of the goods&#039; nature and specifications rather than T.I. 85.01 or T.I. 85.08. The refund working relating to countervailing duty was not examined on merits because the record did not show that the issue had been pursued before the lower authority, and the impugned order did not deal with it.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Aug 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Jun 2011 11:43:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=112758" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (8) TMI 333 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74479</link>
      <description>Goods were held classifiable under T.I. 85.18/27(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, the Department&#039;s classification being accepted on the basis of the goods&#039; nature and specifications rather than T.I. 85.01 or T.I. 85.08. The refund working relating to countervailing duty was not examined on merits because the record did not show that the issue had been pursued before the lower authority, and the impugned order did not deal with it.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Aug 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74479</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>