<?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>1996 (3) TMI 246 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85216</link>
    <description>&#039;Bezel fitted with glass&#039; was held not to require an import licence and not to fall within the relevant negative import list. The Tribunal relied on an earlier batch decision concerning the same period, which had already examined the item in detail and found that Customs had been clearing it as an established practice. Applying that binding prior determination, the present appeals were treated as covered by the same reasoning, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Aug 2011 14:47:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122283" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (3) TMI 246 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85216</link>
      <description>&#039;Bezel fitted with glass&#039; was held not to require an import licence and not to fall within the relevant negative import list. The Tribunal relied on an earlier batch decision concerning the same period, which had already examined the item in detail and found that Customs had been clearing it as an established practice. Applying that binding prior determination, the present appeals were treated as covered by the same reasoning, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85216</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>