<?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>2000 (8) TMI 645 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97034</link>
    <description>Rolls were classified under Heading 8455.10 rather than Heading 8455.90 for countervailing duty purposes, because the Tribunal had already decided the same classification issue in an earlier order. Following that precedent, the appeal was disposed of on the same basis and the lower authority&#039;s classification did not stand. The assessee succeeded on the tariff classification question, and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2012 17:13:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134092" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (8) TMI 645 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97034</link>
      <description>Rolls were classified under Heading 8455.10 rather than Heading 8455.90 for countervailing duty purposes, because the Tribunal had already decided the same classification issue in an earlier order. Following that precedent, the appeal was disposed of on the same basis and the lower authority&#039;s classification did not stand. The assessee succeeded on the tariff classification question, and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97034</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>