<?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>2009 (1) TMI 595 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125264</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s decision to classify imported goods as Acrylic Soft Waste instead of Synthetic Staple Fibre of Acrylic under the Customs Tariff Act. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering various reports and clarifications, noting discrepancies in re-testing and the initial examination. The appeal by the Revenue was rejected, and the cross-objection was disposed of accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Oct 2012 12:46:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=162184" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (1) TMI 595 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125264</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s decision to classify imported goods as Acrylic Soft Waste instead of Synthetic Staple Fibre of Acrylic under the Customs Tariff Act. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering various reports and clarifications, noting discrepancies in re-testing and the initial examination. The appeal by the Revenue was rejected, and the cross-objection was disposed of accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125264</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>