<?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>2005 (7) TMI 516 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116562</link>
    <description>Import documents and examination records describing the goods as assorted rejected material supported classification as waste paper under sub-heading 4707.90, and the fact that the goods were in roll form did not by itself justify classification as paper rolls under Heading 4810.00 without testing or other supporting examination findings. On that classification, the end-use evidence and utilisation certificate showed import for recycling into pulp and paper, so the conditions for exemption under Notification No. 21/2002 were satisfied. The accepted classification and exemption were therefore upheld on the basis of the surrounding evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Jun 2012 16:13:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153560" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (7) TMI 516 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116562</link>
      <description>Import documents and examination records describing the goods as assorted rejected material supported classification as waste paper under sub-heading 4707.90, and the fact that the goods were in roll form did not by itself justify classification as paper rolls under Heading 4810.00 without testing or other supporting examination findings. On that classification, the end-use evidence and utilisation certificate showed import for recycling into pulp and paper, so the conditions for exemption under Notification No. 21/2002 were satisfied. The accepted classification and exemption were therefore upheld on the basis of the surrounding evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116562</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>