https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34677 Concessional duty under Notification No. 39/90 could not be denied because the tariff heading cited in the notification was inconsistent with the goods actually covered. The imported goods were ethylene glycol monoethyl ether and ethylene glycol monobutyl ether, which the respondents' own affidavit placed under Tariff Heading 2909.43. Although column 2 of the notification referred to Tariff Heading 29.05, the Court treated that reference as a typographical error because the exemption description in column 3 matched the goods. The petitioner was therefore entitled to the concessional duty benefit under the notification. en-us Thu, 24 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34677 Concessional duty under Notification No. 39/90 could not be denied because the tariff heading cited in the notification was inconsistent with the goods actually covered. The imported goods were ethylene glycol monoethyl ether and ethylene glycol monobutyl ether, which the respondents' own affidavit placed under Tariff Heading 2909.43. Although column 2 of the notification referred to Tariff Heading 29.05, the Court treated that reference as a typographical error because the exemption description in column 3 matched the goods. The petitioner was therefore entitled to the concessional duty benefit under the notification. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 24 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34677