<?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>1999 (5) TMI 206 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91793</link>
    <description>Benefit under Notification No. 341/76-Cus. was available to imported multilayered paste coated art board because the notification covered multilayered paper board or paste board and did not require the board to be uncoated. Coating on both sides did not remove the goods from the notified description. The issue had already been resolved in Kamal Traders, and no contrary Supreme Court authority was shown, so the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed and concessional duty could not be denied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Oct 2011 18:50:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=128855" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (5) TMI 206 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91793</link>
      <description>Benefit under Notification No. 341/76-Cus. was available to imported multilayered paste coated art board because the notification covered multilayered paper board or paste board and did not require the board to be uncoated. Coating on both sides did not remove the goods from the notified description. The issue had already been resolved in Kamal Traders, and no contrary Supreme Court authority was shown, so the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed and concessional duty could not be denied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91793</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>