<?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 (4) TMI 207 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85241</link>
    <description>Imported staple pins were held classifiable under Heading 83.01/15(2) rather than Heading 73.31 for customs duty purposes. The Tribunal relied on an earlier tribunal ruling, which had followed the Madras High Court and the CCCN Explanatory Notes, to treat the goods as office-type staples covered by the specific departmental heading. As a result, the departmental classification was upheld and the refund claims failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Aug 2011 16:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122308" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (4) TMI 207 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85241</link>
      <description>Imported staple pins were held classifiable under Heading 83.01/15(2) rather than Heading 73.31 for customs duty purposes. The Tribunal relied on an earlier tribunal ruling, which had followed the Madras High Court and the CCCN Explanatory Notes, to treat the goods as office-type staples covered by the specific departmental heading. As a result, the departmental classification was upheld and the refund claims failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85241</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>