<?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>2017 (1) TMI 914 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337834</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the appellant is eligible for the benefit of Notification No.21/2002-Cus as spinnerets are considered equipment under the relevant list. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed based on the classification of spinnerets as essential equipment for the synthetic fibre plant, qualifying for the concessional duty criteria.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Aug 2017 15:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=455744" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 914 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337834</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the appellant is eligible for the benefit of Notification No.21/2002-Cus as spinnerets are considered equipment under the relevant list. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed based on the classification of spinnerets as essential equipment for the synthetic fibre plant, qualifying for the concessional duty criteria.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337834</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>