<?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 (6) TMI 662 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207192</link>
    <description>The tribunal allowed the appeal for the first consignment, classifying the product as Crude Palm Oil under CTH 1511 10 00 and eligible for assessment based on tariff value. The appeal for the second consignment was rejected as the product did not meet the definition of Crude Palm Oil in the relevant notification. The tribunal emphasized classification should align with the tariff heading and HSN definition, not circulars or test reports.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Nov 2011 18:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=180672" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (6) TMI 662 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207192</link>
      <description>The tribunal allowed the appeal for the first consignment, classifying the product as Crude Palm Oil under CTH 1511 10 00 and eligible for assessment based on tariff value. The appeal for the second consignment was rejected as the product did not meet the definition of Crude Palm Oil in the relevant notification. The tribunal emphasized classification should align with the tariff heading and HSN definition, not circulars or test reports.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207192</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>