<?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>2004 (1) TMI 445 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110652</link>
    <description>Duty demand on goods already exported could not be sustained because the liability dispute was premised on a tariff classification issue that did not alter the present result. As the product on which duty was demanded had been exported, the demand was unsustainable in those proceedings. The classification question between the two tariff sub-headings was not examined on merits and was left open for determination in appropriate proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:23:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147668" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (1) TMI 445 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110652</link>
      <description>Duty demand on goods already exported could not be sustained because the liability dispute was premised on a tariff classification issue that did not alter the present result. As the product on which duty was demanded had been exported, the demand was unsustainable in those proceedings. The classification question between the two tariff sub-headings was not examined on merits and was left open for determination in appropriate proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110652</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>