<?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>2001 (7) TMI 569 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97977</link>
    <description>Unfinished or semi-manufactured gold jewellery parts were classified as semi-manufactured gold under Heading 7108.13, not as articles of jewellery under Heading 7113.19, because the goods required further processing before becoming finished jewellery. Notification No. 117/94-Cus. was construed to cover gold in the form imported and to extend concessional duty and refund benefits, since its language was not limited to a narrower sub-heading or finished form. The refund claim, however, still had to satisfy the unjust enrichment test, and the matter was remanded for fresh examination on whether any sanctioned refund was payable to the consumer welfare fund or the importer.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:08:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=135034" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (7) TMI 569 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97977</link>
      <description>Unfinished or semi-manufactured gold jewellery parts were classified as semi-manufactured gold under Heading 7108.13, not as articles of jewellery under Heading 7113.19, because the goods required further processing before becoming finished jewellery. Notification No. 117/94-Cus. was construed to cover gold in the form imported and to extend concessional duty and refund benefits, since its language was not limited to a narrower sub-heading or finished form. The refund claim, however, still had to satisfy the unjust enrichment test, and the matter was remanded for fresh examination on whether any sanctioned refund was payable to the consumer welfare fund or the importer.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97977</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>