<?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 (11) TMI 1724 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284739</link>
    <description>Imported nylon filament yarn was held eligible for the concessional duty rate under Notification No. 5/2006-C.E., as amended, because the concession applied to all goods except nylon filament yarn of 210 deniers or in multiples thereof within the stated tolerance, and the goods in question were not of 210 deniers. Classification was examined with reference to the HSN, and no material was produced to justify denial of the benefit. The prior appellate order supporting the same view remained operative, as there was no showing that it had been stayed or overruled. The Revenue&#039;s challenge therefore failed, and the concessional rate of 4% was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Dec 2019 10:13:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=596627" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (11) TMI 1724 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284739</link>
      <description>Imported nylon filament yarn was held eligible for the concessional duty rate under Notification No. 5/2006-C.E., as amended, because the concession applied to all goods except nylon filament yarn of 210 deniers or in multiples thereof within the stated tolerance, and the goods in question were not of 210 deniers. Classification was examined with reference to the HSN, and no material was produced to justify denial of the benefit. The prior appellate order supporting the same view remained operative, as there was no showing that it had been stayed or overruled. The Revenue&#039;s challenge therefore failed, and the concessional rate of 4% was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284739</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>