<?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 147 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74631</link>
    <description>Cut and calendered steel fabric was held classifiable as reinforcing fabric of iron or steel under Heading 73.27/28 rather than under Heading 40.05/16 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The tariff dispute on customs duty turned on the proper classification of the imported goods, and the matter was treated as covered by an earlier decision involving the same appellants and the same issue. The goods were therefore directed to be reclassified under Heading 73.27/28.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Oct 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Jun 2011 10:57:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=112910" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (10) TMI 147 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74631</link>
      <description>Cut and calendered steel fabric was held classifiable as reinforcing fabric of iron or steel under Heading 73.27/28 rather than under Heading 40.05/16 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The tariff dispute on customs duty turned on the proper classification of the imported goods, and the matter was treated as covered by an earlier decision involving the same appellants and the same issue. The goods were therefore directed to be reclassified under Heading 73.27/28.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Oct 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74631</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>