<?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 (11) TMI 227 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80879</link>
    <description>Imported synthetic waste in the form of slivers and rovings was examined for countervailing duty classification between Item 18(iv) of the Central Excise Tariff and Tariff Item 68. The discussion turned on whether the waste satisfied the Explanation to Item 18(iv) and whether the record contained adequate technical material to identify the stage of manufacture at which the waste arose. One view favoured remand for fresh findings, but the opposing view treated the issue as covered by earlier Tribunal and High Court rulings on similar goods and considered remand unnecessary where the existing record and precedent were sufficient. The dispute was resolved against the importers, and the goods were treated as assessable under Tariff Item 68 rather than being confined to Item 18(iv).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Jun 2011 18:45:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=118024" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (11) TMI 227 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80879</link>
      <description>Imported synthetic waste in the form of slivers and rovings was examined for countervailing duty classification between Item 18(iv) of the Central Excise Tariff and Tariff Item 68. The discussion turned on whether the waste satisfied the Explanation to Item 18(iv) and whether the record contained adequate technical material to identify the stage of manufacture at which the waste arose. One view favoured remand for fresh findings, but the opposing view treated the issue as covered by earlier Tribunal and High Court rulings on similar goods and considered remand unnecessary where the existing record and precedent were sufficient. The dispute was resolved against the importers, and the goods were treated as assessable under Tariff Item 68 rather than being confined to Item 18(iv).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80879</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>