<?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 (8) TMI 503 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121953</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the Commissioner&#039;s order demanding anti-dumping duty, confiscation of goods, and penalties. The judgment highlighted the distinction between the imported glass tubes and the final product CFLs, establishing that the duty notification did not apply to the imported items as they were only parts of CFLs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Oct 2017 11:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=158945" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (8) TMI 503 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121953</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the Commissioner&#039;s order demanding anti-dumping duty, confiscation of goods, and penalties. The judgment highlighted the distinction between the imported glass tubes and the final product CFLs, establishing that the duty notification did not apply to the imported items as they were only parts of CFLs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121953</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>