<?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 (11) TMI 141 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81598</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the classification of imported Ferrous Melting scrap under Customs Tariff Heading 73.03/05. The decision was based on the discrepancy between the draft survey report and the end-use certificate, with reliance on the former to confirm a demand for the deficit quantity of scrap. The Tribunal emphasized the need for weighment evidence by recognized agencies or surveyors and the requirement for establishing loss or destruction prior to clearance for claiming remission of duty under Section 23 of the Customs Act. Ultimately, the appeal was rejected due to insufficient evidence and delays in submission.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Nov 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Jun 2011 16:31:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=118743" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (11) TMI 141 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81598</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the classification of imported Ferrous Melting scrap under Customs Tariff Heading 73.03/05. The decision was based on the discrepancy between the draft survey report and the end-use certificate, with reliance on the former to confirm a demand for the deficit quantity of scrap. The Tribunal emphasized the need for weighment evidence by recognized agencies or surveyors and the requirement for establishing loss or destruction prior to clearance for claiming remission of duty under Section 23 of the Customs Act. Ultimately, the appeal was rejected due to insufficient evidence and delays in submission.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Nov 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81598</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>