<?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 (6) TMI 286 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395911</link>
    <description>The Appeals were allowed, and certain products were excluded from the scope of the product under consideration in the Customs Notification. Specifically, two-layered products with plywood as the bottom layer and products with inlay work on the top layer were excluded. The Tribunal found that the inclusion of these products was beyond the initially defined scope and that providing import data in PDF format hindered proper analysis. The judgment was pronounced on 12 June 2020.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Jun 2020 11:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=615071" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (6) TMI 286 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395911</link>
      <description>The Appeals were allowed, and certain products were excluded from the scope of the product under consideration in the Customs Notification. Specifically, two-layered products with plywood as the bottom layer and products with inlay work on the top layer were excluded. The Tribunal found that the inclusion of these products was beyond the initially defined scope and that providing import data in PDF format hindered proper analysis. The judgment was pronounced on 12 June 2020.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395911</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>