<?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 (8) TMI 96 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42005</link>
    <description>The appeal was dismissed, affirming that steel flanges, post additional processes, are subject to duty under Tariff Item 68 besides the initial forging duty under Tariff Item 26AA(ia). The Court upheld lower authorities&#039; decisions, ruling the classification as appropriate and rejecting claims of hostile discrimination due to insufficient evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Jun 2010 15:27:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80534" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (8) TMI 96 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42005</link>
      <description>The appeal was dismissed, affirming that steel flanges, post additional processes, are subject to duty under Tariff Item 68 besides the initial forging duty under Tariff Item 26AA(ia). The Court upheld lower authorities&#039; decisions, ruling the classification as appropriate and rejecting claims of hostile discrimination due to insufficient evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42005</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>