https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166130 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the imported "pulp stones" were wrongly assessed for countervailing duty under Tariff Entry 51. The goods did not meet the criteria specified in the Explanation of Tariff Entry 51 and should have been assessed under Tariff Heading 68 for countervailing duty. The appeal was partly allowed, directing relief based on the assessment under Tariff Heading 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. en-us Thu, 17 Mar 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 26 Aug 2014 15:34:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166130 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the imported "pulp stones" were wrongly assessed for countervailing duty under Tariff Entry 51. The goods did not meet the criteria specified in the Explanation of Tariff Entry 51 and should have been assessed under Tariff Heading 68 for countervailing duty. The appeal was partly allowed, directing relief based on the assessment under Tariff Heading 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 17 Mar 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166130