<?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>1986 (8) TMI 67 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41840</link>
    <description>Stainless steel circles imported for customs classification were analysed under Heading 73.15 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The expression &quot;sheets&quot; in Heading 73.15(2) was treated as broad enough to include circles, because there was no express exclusion and the wider tariff context supported a generic reading. Note N to Heading 73.13 was regarded as consistent with that approach, but not the sole basis for it. The argument that ambiguity should be resolved in favour of the assessee was rejected, and reliance on analogous statutes, notifications, or industry specifications was considered insufficient to change the tariff meaning.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Jun 2010 13:44:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80369" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (8) TMI 67 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41840</link>
      <description>Stainless steel circles imported for customs classification were analysed under Heading 73.15 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The expression &quot;sheets&quot; in Heading 73.15(2) was treated as broad enough to include circles, because there was no express exclusion and the wider tariff context supported a generic reading. Note N to Heading 73.13 was regarded as consistent with that approach, but not the sole basis for it. The argument that ambiguity should be resolved in favour of the assessee was rejected, and reliance on analogous statutes, notifications, or industry specifications was considered insufficient to change the tariff meaning.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41840</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>