<?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 (11) TMI 761 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104413</link>
    <description>Imported metal goods were examined for classification as bushelling scrap under Section XV of the Customs Tariff Act, turning on whether the goods were definitely unusable as such within Note 8(a) to Section XV. The record was found to lack a clear, objective classification exercise, and the existing conclusion was treated as resting on likelihood rather than a definitive technical finding. Fresh consideration was directed with technical opinion from the National Metallurgical Laboratory or another approved government expert, together with examination of the relevant trade specifications and the precedent relied on by the Revenue. The classification issue was therefore remitted for de novo adjudication rather than finally decided on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:38:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141452" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (11) TMI 761 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104413</link>
      <description>Imported metal goods were examined for classification as bushelling scrap under Section XV of the Customs Tariff Act, turning on whether the goods were definitely unusable as such within Note 8(a) to Section XV. The record was found to lack a clear, objective classification exercise, and the existing conclusion was treated as resting on likelihood rather than a definitive technical finding. Fresh consideration was directed with technical opinion from the National Metallurgical Laboratory or another approved government expert, together with examination of the relevant trade specifications and the precedent relied on by the Revenue. The classification issue was therefore remitted for de novo adjudication rather than finally decided on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104413</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>