<?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>2008 (4) TMI 165 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30727</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeals by the Revenue, affirming that the respondent was not liable to pay additional duty on the imported goods under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act. The goods were eligible for a &#039;nil&#039; rate of duty under Notification No. 4/2006-C.E., and the Tribunal held that actual production or manufacture in India is not necessary for levying additional duty on imported goods.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2008 16:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=69382" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (4) TMI 165 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30727</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeals by the Revenue, affirming that the respondent was not liable to pay additional duty on the imported goods under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act. The goods were eligible for a &#039;nil&#039; rate of duty under Notification No. 4/2006-C.E., and the Tribunal held that actual production or manufacture in India is not necessary for levying additional duty on imported goods.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30727</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>