<?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>2003 (10) TMI 433 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110051</link>
    <description>The appeal was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, in a dispute over the classification of swimming goggles under Chapter 95 or Chapter 90. The penalty was reduced from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 1,000 in the impugned order-in-appeal, pronounced on 27-11-2002.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:37:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147067" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (10) TMI 433 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110051</link>
      <description>The appeal was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, in a dispute over the classification of swimming goggles under Chapter 95 or Chapter 90. The penalty was reduced from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 1,000 in the impugned order-in-appeal, pronounced on 27-11-2002.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110051</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>