<?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>2018 (4) TMI 1192 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359081</link>
    <description>Cast iron pipes exported by the appellant were held liable to export duty under Notification No. 66/2008-Cus. because the notification covered tubes and pipes of iron or steel in plain terms and did not adopt the Heading 7304 exclusion for cast iron. The tariff-heading distinction relied on by the appellant was rejected, as the notification was construed independently of that exclusion. The levy was therefore upheld and the challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Mar 2019 11:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=517830" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (4) TMI 1192 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359081</link>
      <description>Cast iron pipes exported by the appellant were held liable to export duty under Notification No. 66/2008-Cus. because the notification covered tubes and pipes of iron or steel in plain terms and did not adopt the Heading 7304 exclusion for cast iron. The tariff-heading distinction relied on by the appellant was rejected, as the notification was construed independently of that exclusion. The levy was therefore upheld and the challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359081</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>