<?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 (7) TMI 321 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345209</link>
    <description>Concessional customs duty under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. was available for an imported metering gear pump used to meter viscose solution for spinning because the record showed it performed the required metering function and no separate measuring device was attached. Denial of the benefit could not be sustained where Revenue relied on expert opinion without putting the importer on notice of that material, and the importer&#039;s contrary opinion was not considered. In the absence of rebuttal evidence from Revenue, the technical description of the goods supported classification for concessional treatment, and the benefit was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Feb 2018 10:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=480831" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (7) TMI 321 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345209</link>
      <description>Concessional customs duty under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. was available for an imported metering gear pump used to meter viscose solution for spinning because the record showed it performed the required metering function and no separate measuring device was attached. Denial of the benefit could not be sustained where Revenue relied on expert opinion without putting the importer on notice of that material, and the importer&#039;s contrary opinion was not considered. In the absence of rebuttal evidence from Revenue, the technical description of the goods supported classification for concessional treatment, and the benefit was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345209</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>