<?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 (2) TMI 273 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81525</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the Revenue&#039;s appeal against the Collector of Customs (Appeals) decision regarding the levy of additional duty on imported m.s. scrap. The Tribunal emphasized that additional duty under the Customs Tariff Act is distinct from central excise duty and is applicable regardless of whether similar goods attract excise duty in India. The Tribunal held that the Collector (Appeals) erred in applying central excise duty principles and ruled in favor of the Revenue, highlighting the importance of following procedural rules for introducing new grounds during the appeal process. The classification issue raised by the respondent was not considered due to procedural non-compliance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Jun 2011 12:37:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=118670" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (2) TMI 273 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81525</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the Revenue&#039;s appeal against the Collector of Customs (Appeals) decision regarding the levy of additional duty on imported m.s. scrap. The Tribunal emphasized that additional duty under the Customs Tariff Act is distinct from central excise duty and is applicable regardless of whether similar goods attract excise duty in India. The Tribunal held that the Collector (Appeals) erred in applying central excise duty principles and ruled in favor of the Revenue, highlighting the importance of following procedural rules for introducing new grounds during the appeal process. The classification issue raised by the respondent was not considered due to procedural non-compliance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81525</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>