<?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>1983 (4) TMI 255 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166074</link>
    <description>Tinned brass square wire imported as a drawn product was treated as wire, not as strips, for tariff classification. The Tribunal held that the Indian Standards specification relied on by the department applied to rolled strips and did not match the goods in question. On that basis, the goods did not fall within Item 26A(2) of the Central Excise Tariff, so countervailing duty under that item was not attracted and the appeal succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Apr 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Aug 2014 12:16:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=363714" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (4) TMI 255 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166074</link>
      <description>Tinned brass square wire imported as a drawn product was treated as wire, not as strips, for tariff classification. The Tribunal held that the Indian Standards specification relied on by the department applied to rolled strips and did not match the goods in question. On that basis, the goods did not fall within Item 26A(2) of the Central Excise Tariff, so countervailing duty under that item was not attracted and the appeal succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Apr 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166074</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>