<?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>1987 (9) TMI 47 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42004</link>
    <description>Interpretation of the customs exemption for &quot;copper waste and scrap&quot; was determined by the Tariff Act classification rules and Section Notes 3 and 4 of Section XV, not by a commercial distinction between copper and brass. The Calcutta High Court noted that the Supreme Court had already held brass scrap to fall within the expression &quot;copper waste and scrap&quot; for tariff and exemption purposes, and that those interpretative rules prevail over other aids to construction, including contemporaneous notifications. On that basis, brass waste and scrap remained covered by the copper scrap notification, and the petitioner&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Jun 2010 15:20:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80533" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (9) TMI 47 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42004</link>
      <description>Interpretation of the customs exemption for &quot;copper waste and scrap&quot; was determined by the Tariff Act classification rules and Section Notes 3 and 4 of Section XV, not by a commercial distinction between copper and brass. The Calcutta High Court noted that the Supreme Court had already held brass scrap to fall within the expression &quot;copper waste and scrap&quot; for tariff and exemption purposes, and that those interpretative rules prevail over other aids to construction, including contemporaneous notifications. On that basis, brass waste and scrap remained covered by the copper scrap notification, and the petitioner&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42004</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>