https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403766 An apparent error in recording the competing tariff classifications was corrected by substituting CTH 85176990 for CTH 85176290 in the earlier order. The rectification was based on the mismatch between the recorded text and the rival classifications noted in the proceedings. The order also recorded that, once the goods were classifiable under CTH 85176290, the exemption under Sl. No. 20 of Notification No. 57/2017 dated 30.7.2017 followed on that accepted classification. The appellant was therefore expressly stated to be eligible for the exemption benefit. en-us Tue, 12 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Feb 2021 14:10:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403766 An apparent error in recording the competing tariff classifications was corrected by substituting CTH 85176990 for CTH 85176290 in the earlier order. The rectification was based on the mismatch between the recorded text and the rival classifications noted in the proceedings. The order also recorded that, once the goods were classifiable under CTH 85176290, the exemption under Sl. No. 20 of Notification No. 57/2017 dated 30.7.2017 followed on that accepted classification. The appellant was therefore expressly stated to be eligible for the exemption benefit. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 12 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403766