<?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>1990 (7) TMI 216 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80704</link>
    <description>A defective appeal filed within time and later regularised was treated as having been filed within limitation, so the assessee obtained relief on the limitation issue. An imported step and repeat machine was classified under Heading 84.40 in line with earlier Tribunal decisions on the same product description, and countervailing duty was confined to Tariff Item 68. Consequential relief followed, with the refund claim limited to the amount originally claimed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jul 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Jun 2011 16:38:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=117850" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (7) TMI 216 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80704</link>
      <description>A defective appeal filed within time and later regularised was treated as having been filed within limitation, so the assessee obtained relief on the limitation issue. An imported step and repeat machine was classified under Heading 84.40 in line with earlier Tribunal decisions on the same product description, and countervailing duty was confined to Tariff Item 68. Consequential relief followed, with the refund claim limited to the amount originally claimed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jul 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80704</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>