<?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 (5) TMI 227 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166117</link>
    <description>The Tribunal rejected the appeal in a customs duty case involving imported aluminium foil laminated with polyethylene film. The appellants sought lower duty rates based on various customs duty notifications but failed to demonstrate eligibility under Notification No. 173/77-Cus., which required more than 97% aluminium content in the entire laminate. The Tribunal held that the purity condition applied to the entire laminate, not just the aluminium portion, and as the overall aluminium content was not proven to exceed 97%, the relief was denied. The decision emphasized adherence to specific criteria in the notifications and lack of evidence supporting the appellants&#039; eligibility.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 May 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2014 11:46:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=363797" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (5) TMI 227 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166117</link>
      <description>The Tribunal rejected the appeal in a customs duty case involving imported aluminium foil laminated with polyethylene film. The appellants sought lower duty rates based on various customs duty notifications but failed to demonstrate eligibility under Notification No. 173/77-Cus., which required more than 97% aluminium content in the entire laminate. The Tribunal held that the purity condition applied to the entire laminate, not just the aluminium portion, and as the overall aluminium content was not proven to exceed 97%, the relief was denied. The decision emphasized adherence to specific criteria in the notifications and lack of evidence supporting the appellants&#039; eligibility.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 May 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166117</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>