<?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>1984 (8) TMI 324 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167112</link>
    <description>Fatty alcohols such as lauryl, octyl, cetyl and oleic alcohol were held classifiable under Heading 15.08/13 of the Customs Tariff Schedule, 1975 because Chapter 15 specifically covered fatty alcohols, whereas Chapter 29 dealt with separate chemically defined organic compounds and did not expressly include them. The departmental reliance on a 90% purity test was rejected for lack of statutory basis, and explanatory notes were treated only as a persuasive aid. As the goods fell within Chapter 15, they also qualified for exemption from additional customs duty under Notification No. 48 dated 01-03-1979. The appellate classification was upheld and the Revenue&#039;s challenge to the exemption failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Aug 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Dec 2014 11:51:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=370360" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (8) TMI 324 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167112</link>
      <description>Fatty alcohols such as lauryl, octyl, cetyl and oleic alcohol were held classifiable under Heading 15.08/13 of the Customs Tariff Schedule, 1975 because Chapter 15 specifically covered fatty alcohols, whereas Chapter 29 dealt with separate chemically defined organic compounds and did not expressly include them. The departmental reliance on a 90% purity test was rejected for lack of statutory basis, and explanatory notes were treated only as a persuasive aid. As the goods fell within Chapter 15, they also qualified for exemption from additional customs duty under Notification No. 48 dated 01-03-1979. The appellate classification was upheld and the Revenue&#039;s challenge to the exemption failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Aug 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167112</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>