<?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 (7) TMI 173 - CESTAT Bangalore</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31703</link>
    <description>Exported rubber goods were held to be vulcanised and in ready-to-use mat form, based on test reports and a Rubber Board report, so they fell under Heading 4016 as vulcanised rubber articles and mats. Heading 4005 applies only to compounded unvulcanised rubber in primary form or in plates, sheets or strips, and Chapter Note 9 excludes articles cut to shape or further worked from that heading. The goods&#039; definite shape, even edges and embossing supported classification under Heading 4016. An earlier decision on DEPB eligibility was found irrelevant to the customs classification issue, and the specific description rule favoured the department&#039;s classification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=70349" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 173 - CESTAT Bangalore</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31703</link>
      <description>Exported rubber goods were held to be vulcanised and in ready-to-use mat form, based on test reports and a Rubber Board report, so they fell under Heading 4016 as vulcanised rubber articles and mats. Heading 4005 applies only to compounded unvulcanised rubber in primary form or in plates, sheets or strips, and Chapter Note 9 excludes articles cut to shape or further worked from that heading. The goods&#039; definite shape, even edges and embossing supported classification under Heading 4016. An earlier decision on DEPB eligibility was found irrelevant to the customs classification issue, and the specific description rule favoured the department&#039;s classification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31703</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>