<?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>1989 (12) TMI 213 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81619</link>
    <description>Interpretation of Notification No. 431/76-Cus. on cloves turned on whether &quot;less 71/2%&quot; meant a 71/2% ad valorem concession or a reduction from a specific duty per kilogram. The majority treated the absence of the words &quot;ad valorem&quot; in the cloves entry, contrasted with their use in other entries, as indicating a specific-rate structure and refused to read those words into the notification by implication; the explanatory notes to the tariff schedule were held inapplicable because the table formed part of the notification itself. The dissent would have followed the earlier Tribunal view and construed the phrase as 71/2% ad valorem.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Jun 2011 17:39:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=118764" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (12) TMI 213 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81619</link>
      <description>Interpretation of Notification No. 431/76-Cus. on cloves turned on whether &quot;less 71/2%&quot; meant a 71/2% ad valorem concession or a reduction from a specific duty per kilogram. The majority treated the absence of the words &quot;ad valorem&quot; in the cloves entry, contrasted with their use in other entries, as indicating a specific-rate structure and refused to read those words into the notification by implication; the explanatory notes to the tariff schedule were held inapplicable because the table formed part of the notification itself. The dissent would have followed the earlier Tribunal view and construed the phrase as 71/2% ad valorem.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81619</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>