<?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>1991 (3) TMI 275 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81363</link>
    <description>An exemption notification must be applied strictly according to its own terms: ceramic seals imported for use in water pump assemblies did not qualify under Notification No. 117/78-Cus. because the notification covered only parts and accessories of mechanical appliances within the specified tariff headings, while the governing chapter note excluded ceramic appliances and their parts from Chapter 84. The analogy to an earlier Supreme Court decision was held inapplicable due to materially different wording and tariff position. The drawback claim under Section 75 of the Customs Act was also not granted on the record, as use in exported assemblies was not established and the claim had not been properly raised or verified before the lower authorities.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Jun 2011 11:15:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=118508" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (3) TMI 275 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81363</link>
      <description>An exemption notification must be applied strictly according to its own terms: ceramic seals imported for use in water pump assemblies did not qualify under Notification No. 117/78-Cus. because the notification covered only parts and accessories of mechanical appliances within the specified tariff headings, while the governing chapter note excluded ceramic appliances and their parts from Chapter 84. The analogy to an earlier Supreme Court decision was held inapplicable due to materially different wording and tariff position. The drawback claim under Section 75 of the Customs Act was also not granted on the record, as use in exported assemblies was not established and the claim had not been properly raised or verified before the lower authorities.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81363</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>