<?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 (9) TMI 237 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85768</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision allowing the clearance of staple pins under a special import license, rejecting the Department&#039;s arguments. It differentiated between pins and staples, concluding that staple pins were entitled to be imported under the specified category. The Tribunal emphasized that the prohibition of staplers did not extend to staples and clarified that the issue of import under Open General Licence was beyond the scope of the current decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Aug 2011 11:02:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122835" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (9) TMI 237 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85768</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision allowing the clearance of staple pins under a special import license, rejecting the Department&#039;s arguments. It differentiated between pins and staples, concluding that staple pins were entitled to be imported under the specified category. The Tribunal emphasized that the prohibition of staplers did not extend to staples and clarified that the issue of import under Open General Licence was beyond the scope of the current decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85768</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>