<?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>1992 (6) TMI 112 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81900</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the classification of rocker lever castings and camplates under sub-heading No. 84.10(3) based on their essential character as finished articles, rejecting the appellants&#039; claims for a different classification and exemption under Notification 254/76-Cus. The application of Rule 2(a) of the General Rules for Interpretation was deemed appropriate, emphasizing that such interpretative rules are integral to determining duty rates under the Customs Tariff Act. The appellants&#039; argument that substantive rights under the Customs Act were being infringed upon was dismissed, affirming the validity of the classification process.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2011 16:21:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=119045" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (6) TMI 112 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81900</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the classification of rocker lever castings and camplates under sub-heading No. 84.10(3) based on their essential character as finished articles, rejecting the appellants&#039; claims for a different classification and exemption under Notification 254/76-Cus. The application of Rule 2(a) of the General Rules for Interpretation was deemed appropriate, emphasizing that such interpretative rules are integral to determining duty rates under the Customs Tariff Act. The appellants&#039; argument that substantive rights under the Customs Act were being infringed upon was dismissed, affirming the validity of the classification process.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81900</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>