<?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 (10) TMI 988 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105411</link>
    <description>Imported goods composed of sand, cement, calcium carbonate and additives were prima facie treated as non-refractory surfacing preparations under Heading 3214.90, because that entry covered preparations for facades, walls, floors and ceilings, while Heading 2520.90 applied to plasters consisting of calcined gypsum or calcium sulphate. The goods&#039; composition did not support classification as gypsum-based plaster, and prior classifications in other Customs Houses did not displace the rival tariff analysis. On that basis, the request for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery, including encashment of bank guarantees, was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2012 16:08:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142449" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (10) TMI 988 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105411</link>
      <description>Imported goods composed of sand, cement, calcium carbonate and additives were prima facie treated as non-refractory surfacing preparations under Heading 3214.90, because that entry covered preparations for facades, walls, floors and ceilings, while Heading 2520.90 applied to plasters consisting of calcined gypsum or calcium sulphate. The goods&#039; composition did not support classification as gypsum-based plaster, and prior classifications in other Customs Houses did not displace the rival tariff analysis. On that basis, the request for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery, including encashment of bank guarantees, was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105411</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>