<?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>2015 (12) TMI 1635 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190156</link>
    <description>Imported steel scrap was classified as rerollable scrap rather than heavy melting scrap because expert examination found it comprised substantial round bars, square bars, billets, flats and plates, and the long pieces could not be directly fed into a rerolling furnace without cutting. The Tribunal rejected the contention that rerollable scrap required a proven length restriction, and held that the assessee&#039;s claimed actual use for melting could not change the character of the goods as imported, since classification depends on the condition at import. On that basis, the denial of Notification No. 21/2002-Customs benefit was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2017 09:40:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=457828" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (12) TMI 1635 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190156</link>
      <description>Imported steel scrap was classified as rerollable scrap rather than heavy melting scrap because expert examination found it comprised substantial round bars, square bars, billets, flats and plates, and the long pieces could not be directly fed into a rerolling furnace without cutting. The Tribunal rejected the contention that rerollable scrap required a proven length restriction, and held that the assessee&#039;s claimed actual use for melting could not change the character of the goods as imported, since classification depends on the condition at import. On that basis, the denial of Notification No. 21/2002-Customs benefit was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190156</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>