<?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>CESTAT ruled on the classification of imported Zinc. Revenue&#039;s claim rejected due to insufficient evidence. Appeal dismissed.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78792</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal addressed the issue of classifying imported Zinc as unwrought/unrefined under a specific customs tariff heading. The Tribunal rejected the demand for differential duty based on theoretical transaction value, citing lack of evidence supporting the goods being Zinc Dross. The Revenue&#039;s attempt to raise a new classification question was deemed inadmissible due to prior concession. The Tribunal upheld the lower authority&#039;s decision, stating the Revenue&#039;s grounds were not valid. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, finding no errors in the Commissioner&#039;s order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jun 2024 08:36:43 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Jun 2024 08:36:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=757422" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>CESTAT ruled on the classification of imported Zinc. Revenue&#039;s claim rejected due to insufficient evidence. Appeal dismissed.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78792</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal addressed the issue of classifying imported Zinc as unwrought/unrefined under a specific customs tariff heading. The Tribunal rejected the demand for differential duty based on theoretical transaction value, citing lack of evidence supporting the goods being Zinc Dross. The Revenue&#039;s attempt to raise a new classification question was deemed inadmissible due to prior concession. The Tribunal upheld the lower authority&#039;s decision, stating the Revenue&#039;s grounds were not valid. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, finding no errors in the Commissioner&#039;s order.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jun 2024 08:36:43 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78792</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>