<?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>1995 (9) TMI 76 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44786</link>
    <description>Cellulose acetate scrap imported before 1-3-1982 was not covered by Tariff Item 15A(1) or 15A(2) because, on the facts found, it did not answer those specific tariff descriptions. It was therefore classifiable under the residuary Tariff Item 68, and additional duty had to be computed on that basis. Where duty is collected on an incorrect classification, the differential amount is refundable, and the refund directed by the Collector (Appeals) was justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Jul 2010 17:32:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=83315" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (9) TMI 76 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44786</link>
      <description>Cellulose acetate scrap imported before 1-3-1982 was not covered by Tariff Item 15A(1) or 15A(2) because, on the facts found, it did not answer those specific tariff descriptions. It was therefore classifiable under the residuary Tariff Item 68, and additional duty had to be computed on that basis. Where duty is collected on an incorrect classification, the differential amount is refundable, and the refund directed by the Collector (Appeals) was justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44786</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>