<?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>2007 (7) TMI 464 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121948</link>
    <description>Finished leather cut pieces imported for further stitching into car seat covers were treated as not ready-to-use leather articles under Chapter 42, because they required further processing and were intended for motor vehicle accessories rather than finished leather goods. On that basis, the goods were aligned with Chapter 41 rather than articles of leather under Chapter 42. The text also notes that exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. was available for finished leather under Chapter 41, and that identical goods had earlier been assessed on the same basis with the benefit allowed. Consistent treatment of identical imports therefore supported the exemption claim.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Aug 2012 14:25:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=158940" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (7) TMI 464 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121948</link>
      <description>Finished leather cut pieces imported for further stitching into car seat covers were treated as not ready-to-use leather articles under Chapter 42, because they required further processing and were intended for motor vehicle accessories rather than finished leather goods. On that basis, the goods were aligned with Chapter 41 rather than articles of leather under Chapter 42. The text also notes that exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. was available for finished leather under Chapter 41, and that identical goods had earlier been assessed on the same basis with the benefit allowed. Consistent treatment of identical imports therefore supported the exemption claim.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121948</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>