<?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>1997 (5) TMI 246 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87537</link>
    <description>Notification No. 493/86 did not extend exemption to brass dross or brass ash falling under Heading 26.20 where Serial No. 6 expressly excluded ash and residue of copper, including dross. The Tribunal treated brass ash as a residuary item and accepted that the same exclusion applied to brass dross, rejecting a trade-based distinction between copper and brass. On that construction, the claimed concessional treatment was unavailable and the denial of relief was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2011 16:25:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124604" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (5) TMI 246 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87537</link>
      <description>Notification No. 493/86 did not extend exemption to brass dross or brass ash falling under Heading 26.20 where Serial No. 6 expressly excluded ash and residue of copper, including dross. The Tribunal treated brass ash as a residuary item and accepted that the same exclusion applied to brass dross, rejecting a trade-based distinction between copper and brass. On that construction, the claimed concessional treatment was unavailable and the denial of relief was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87537</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>