<?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>2002 (4) TMI 79 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46268</link>
    <description>SC held that the Tribunal misdirected itself by ignoring that the appellants had amended their tariff classification before the Assistant Collector of Customs. The orders of the Assistant Collector, the Collector (Appeals) and the Tribunal were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs for fresh decision on the appellants&#039; claim as contained in their earlier letters, including any consequential relief flowing from the changed classification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2025 12:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84794" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (4) TMI 79 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46268</link>
      <description>SC held that the Tribunal misdirected itself by ignoring that the appellants had amended their tariff classification before the Assistant Collector of Customs. The orders of the Assistant Collector, the Collector (Appeals) and the Tribunal were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Assistant Collector of Customs for fresh decision on the appellants&#039; claim as contained in their earlier letters, including any consequential relief flowing from the changed classification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46268</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>