<?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 264 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85795</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the imported Peristaltic Pump should be classified under Heading 84.10(1) for process control applications, not under 84.10(3) for internal combustion engine pumps. The appeal was accepted, and relief was granted, with directions to ensure the correct calculation of duty based on the new classification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Aug 2011 12:15:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122862" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (9) TMI 264 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85795</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the imported Peristaltic Pump should be classified under Heading 84.10(1) for process control applications, not under 84.10(3) for internal combustion engine pumps. The appeal was accepted, and relief was granted, with directions to ensure the correct calculation of duty based on the new classification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85795</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>