<?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>1997 (1) TMI 526 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174115</link>
    <description>For imported textured yarn produced out of base yarn, the additional duty under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 had to be levied by reference to the specific description of the imported goods and the rate attached to that description. The highest-rate rule in the Explanation to Section 3(1) applies only where goods of the same description attract different rates. Because the goods were not &quot;other textured yarn&quot; but a distinct concessional category, the higher rate could not be used. The Additional Duty Rules, 1976 and the exemption notification were read consistently with that classification, and the levy remained confined to the specific rate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2015 13:04:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=399380" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (1) TMI 526 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174115</link>
      <description>For imported textured yarn produced out of base yarn, the additional duty under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 had to be levied by reference to the specific description of the imported goods and the rate attached to that description. The highest-rate rule in the Explanation to Section 3(1) applies only where goods of the same description attract different rates. Because the goods were not &quot;other textured yarn&quot; but a distinct concessional category, the higher rate could not be used. The Additional Duty Rules, 1976 and the exemption notification were read consistently with that classification, and the levy remained confined to the specific rate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174115</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>