<?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>1994 (11) TMI 230 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83792</link>
    <description>Provisional customs assessments preserved the assessing authority&#039;s power to finalise the assessment where importers had furnished bonds for re-export, and the earlier tentative clearance did not oust that authority. The exemption notification was construed according to its own language, and the bracketed reference to materials was treated as illustrative rather than exhaustive because the wording used &quot;whether,&quot; indicating a broad, non-restrictive scope. On that reading, imported CADISACS were capable of falling within the description of printed bags and could not be denied the benefit of Notification No. 150/80-Cus merely by a restrictive construction of the material description.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Jul 2011 18:20:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120936" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (11) TMI 230 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83792</link>
      <description>Provisional customs assessments preserved the assessing authority&#039;s power to finalise the assessment where importers had furnished bonds for re-export, and the earlier tentative clearance did not oust that authority. The exemption notification was construed according to its own language, and the bracketed reference to materials was treated as illustrative rather than exhaustive because the wording used &quot;whether,&quot; indicating a broad, non-restrictive scope. On that reading, imported CADISACS were capable of falling within the description of printed bags and could not be denied the benefit of Notification No. 150/80-Cus merely by a restrictive construction of the material description.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83792</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>