<?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 (3) TMI 717 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98150</link>
    <description>A ship imported into India for breaking up remained liable to additional customs duty because Notification No. 74/93-Cus. granted only concessional basic customs duty for vessels under Heading 89.08 and did not exempt additional duty. The alternative claim under Notification No. 167/86-C.E. also failed because that exemption applied only to goods manufactured without the aid of power, and the breaking and cutting operations used power. The exemption claim was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 13:22:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=135207" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (3) TMI 717 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98150</link>
      <description>A ship imported into India for breaking up remained liable to additional customs duty because Notification No. 74/93-Cus. granted only concessional basic customs duty for vessels under Heading 89.08 and did not exempt additional duty. The alternative claim under Notification No. 167/86-C.E. also failed because that exemption applied only to goods manufactured without the aid of power, and the breaking and cutting operations used power. The exemption claim was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98150</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>