<?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 (9) TMI 274 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87816</link>
    <description>Heading 26.20 of the Customs Tariff applies only to ash and residues of the kind described in the tariff notes and HSN, namely materials used in industry for extraction of metal or manufacture of chemical compounds. Tin alloy dross that was not shown to be ash, residue, or intermediate metallurgical waste of that description could not be classified under sub-heading 2620.90 merely because it contained tin and lead. The chemical report and the nature of the goods supported classification as tin/lead alloy waste or scrap. Denial of cross-examination of the Chief Chemist did not affect the classification, because the dispute turned on the character of the goods and the relevant reports had been furnished. The classification adopted by the adjudicating authority was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Sep 2011 11:25:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124882" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (9) TMI 274 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87816</link>
      <description>Heading 26.20 of the Customs Tariff applies only to ash and residues of the kind described in the tariff notes and HSN, namely materials used in industry for extraction of metal or manufacture of chemical compounds. Tin alloy dross that was not shown to be ash, residue, or intermediate metallurgical waste of that description could not be classified under sub-heading 2620.90 merely because it contained tin and lead. The chemical report and the nature of the goods supported classification as tin/lead alloy waste or scrap. Denial of cross-examination of the Chief Chemist did not affect the classification, because the dispute turned on the character of the goods and the relevant reports had been furnished. The classification adopted by the adjudicating authority was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87816</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>