<?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>2020 (3) TMI 669 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393525</link>
    <description>Sputtering targets containing precious metal were classified under Chapter 71 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 because Rule 3(a) of the General Rules for Interpretation and Chapter Note 1(b) required the more specific tariff description to prevail. The goods were treated as articles of precious metal with an independent identity, rather than as machine parts falling under Chapter 85. A notification referring to silver sputtering targets under Chapter 71 supported that classification, although the operative basis remained the tariff notes and interpretative rules. As a result, the goods were not eligible for treatment under Chapter 85, and the drawback claim was upheld as rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2020 11:46:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=607172" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (3) TMI 669 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393525</link>
      <description>Sputtering targets containing precious metal were classified under Chapter 71 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 because Rule 3(a) of the General Rules for Interpretation and Chapter Note 1(b) required the more specific tariff description to prevail. The goods were treated as articles of precious metal with an independent identity, rather than as machine parts falling under Chapter 85. A notification referring to silver sputtering targets under Chapter 71 supported that classification, although the operative basis remained the tariff notes and interpretative rules. As a result, the goods were not eligible for treatment under Chapter 85, and the drawback claim was upheld as rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393525</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>