<?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 (11) TMI 300 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166789</link>
    <description>Tapioca chips exported for industrial use were examined against the tariff description &quot;animal feed&quot; under Item 21 of the Second Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The laboratory reports showed the goods did not conform to the Indian Standard Specification for livestock feed, and the evidence also pointed to recognised industrial and food uses, including a buyer&#039;s certificate stating industrial use. On that basis, the expression &quot;animal feed&quot; could not be extended to cover the consignments, and the Department failed to justify the classification. The export duty demand therefore could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Nov 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Nov 2014 09:59:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=368181" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (11) TMI 300 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166789</link>
      <description>Tapioca chips exported for industrial use were examined against the tariff description &quot;animal feed&quot; under Item 21 of the Second Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The laboratory reports showed the goods did not conform to the Indian Standard Specification for livestock feed, and the evidence also pointed to recognised industrial and food uses, including a buyer&#039;s certificate stating industrial use. On that basis, the expression &quot;animal feed&quot; could not be extended to cover the consignments, and the Department failed to justify the classification. The export duty demand therefore could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Nov 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166789</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>