<?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>1980 (11) TMI 47 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40909</link>
    <description>Imported tungsten filaments were classifiable under the specific tariff entry for tungsten and articles thereof, because that description directly matched the goods. They were not electric filament lamps, and their intended use as lamp components did not justify placing them under the broader lamp entry. The specific tariff description therefore prevailed over the general entry, and the higher levy based on the latter was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Nov 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 May 2010 10:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79440" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (11) TMI 47 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40909</link>
      <description>Imported tungsten filaments were classifiable under the specific tariff entry for tungsten and articles thereof, because that description directly matched the goods. They were not electric filament lamps, and their intended use as lamp components did not justify placing them under the broader lamp entry. The specific tariff description therefore prevailed over the general entry, and the higher levy based on the latter was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Nov 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40909</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>