<?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>2023 (8) TMI 804 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441825</link>
    <description>Tariff classification for drawback purposes turned on the goods&#039; essential character, commercial understanding, functional utility, design and predominant end use. Sanitary and bathroom fittings made of brass were held to fall under the specific Chapter 74 entry for sanitary and bathroom fittings, not the broader Chapter 84 entry covering taps, cocks and similar appliances. The specific tariff description prevailed over a general heading, and the goods were not to be reclassified as artware or handicraft merely because they had an attractive appearance. The revisionary order rejecting the claimant&#039;s classification was therefore set aside, and drawback was to be considered on the Chapter 74 basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2026 15:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=722926" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (8) TMI 804 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441825</link>
      <description>Tariff classification for drawback purposes turned on the goods&#039; essential character, commercial understanding, functional utility, design and predominant end use. Sanitary and bathroom fittings made of brass were held to fall under the specific Chapter 74 entry for sanitary and bathroom fittings, not the broader Chapter 84 entry covering taps, cocks and similar appliances. The specific tariff description prevailed over a general heading, and the goods were not to be reclassified as artware or handicraft merely because they had an attractive appearance. The revisionary order rejecting the claimant&#039;s classification was therefore set aside, and drawback was to be considered on the Chapter 74 basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441825</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>