<?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>1989 (9) TMI 117 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42695</link>
    <description>The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, setting aside the impugned order and granting their claim for a refund of Rs. 2,79,161. The court held that the classification of the imported manganese dioxide ore under Entry 28 was incorrect and should have been classified under Entry 26 of the Indian Tariff Act, exempting it from customs duty. The court noted the breach of natural justice principles and the Customs Authorities&#039; failure to consider supplementary test reports and expert opinions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Jun 2010 17:11:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=81224" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (9) TMI 117 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42695</link>
      <description>The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, setting aside the impugned order and granting their claim for a refund of Rs. 2,79,161. The court held that the classification of the imported manganese dioxide ore under Entry 28 was incorrect and should have been classified under Entry 26 of the Indian Tariff Act, exempting it from customs duty. The court noted the breach of natural justice principles and the Customs Authorities&#039; failure to consider supplementary test reports and expert opinions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42695</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>