<?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 (6) TMI 254 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85987</link>
    <description>An appellate authority may revise customs classification on the basis of materials on record, including drawings, literature and catalogues, and such reclassification is not invalid merely because neither party specifically claimed the tariff item adopted. On that basis, goods previously assessed under Heading 90.29(2) were held correctly classifiable under Heading 90.29(1). Once classification was altered, consequential refund could be granted from the duty actually collected, even if the refund exceeded the differential demand, provided it did not go beyond the total duty recovered. The order was sustained in full and the appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Jun 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Aug 2011 14:46:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123054" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (6) TMI 254 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85987</link>
      <description>An appellate authority may revise customs classification on the basis of materials on record, including drawings, literature and catalogues, and such reclassification is not invalid merely because neither party specifically claimed the tariff item adopted. On that basis, goods previously assessed under Heading 90.29(2) were held correctly classifiable under Heading 90.29(1). Once classification was altered, consequential refund could be granted from the duty actually collected, even if the refund exceeded the differential demand, provided it did not go beyond the total duty recovered. The order was sustained in full and the appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Jun 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85987</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>