<?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>2013 (9) TMI 101 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236668</link>
    <description>Imported stone declared as raw marble blocks was held classifiable as marble under Chapter Heading 2515.11, not limestone under Chapter Heading 2515.20, because the test report had to be read as a whole. Although one part of the report suggested limestone, it also stated that the rock was hard enough to take a good polish, could be used as commercial marble, and showed signs of recrystallization. On that basis, the goods satisfied the commercial and technical understanding of marble. The revenue&#039;s selective reliance on only the adverse portion of the report was rejected, and the allegation of misdeclaration, confiscation, and penalty failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Sep 2013 12:25:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=199075" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (9) TMI 101 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236668</link>
      <description>Imported stone declared as raw marble blocks was held classifiable as marble under Chapter Heading 2515.11, not limestone under Chapter Heading 2515.20, because the test report had to be read as a whole. Although one part of the report suggested limestone, it also stated that the rock was hard enough to take a good polish, could be used as commercial marble, and showed signs of recrystallization. On that basis, the goods satisfied the commercial and technical understanding of marble. The revenue&#039;s selective reliance on only the adverse portion of the report was rejected, and the allegation of misdeclaration, confiscation, and penalty failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236668</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>