<?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 453 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102953</link>
    <description>Notification No. 341/76-Cus. granted partial exemption to multi-layered board, and that benefit was held applicable to goods described as both sides coated multi-layered pasted art board. The test report confirmed the imports as multi-layered coated paste board, and exemption could not be denied merely because the goods were coated on both sides. The objection that the goods were art board was rejected because art board was treated as characteristically coated on both sides, and such coating did not take the goods outside the scope of the notification. The issue was treated as covered by earlier Tribunal authority, with no contrary Supreme Court decision shown.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:41:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=139999" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (5) TMI 453 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102953</link>
      <description>Notification No. 341/76-Cus. granted partial exemption to multi-layered board, and that benefit was held applicable to goods described as both sides coated multi-layered pasted art board. The test report confirmed the imports as multi-layered coated paste board, and exemption could not be denied merely because the goods were coated on both sides. The objection that the goods were art board was rejected because art board was treated as characteristically coated on both sides, and such coating did not take the goods outside the scope of the notification. The issue was treated as covered by earlier Tribunal authority, with no contrary Supreme Court decision shown.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102953</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>