<?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>2005 (3) TMI 159 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47764</link>
    <description>Goods made by cutting, bending and welding pipe portions for pipeline use were held not to answer the tariff description of pipe fittings under heading 7307.00, because that entry covers articles mainly used to connect tubes or close apertures, whereas the language of heading 73.05 expressly contemplates tubes and pipes that may be welded or similarly closed. Applying the literal meaning of the tariff entries, the classification under heading 7307.00 was rejected and the goods were placed under heading 7305.90. The objection based on alternative remedy was also rejected, as the rule is one of discretion and does not bar writ jurisdiction where the levy depends on an erroneous tariff interpretation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 19 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 16:57:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=86282" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (3) TMI 159 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47764</link>
      <description>Goods made by cutting, bending and welding pipe portions for pipeline use were held not to answer the tariff description of pipe fittings under heading 7307.00, because that entry covers articles mainly used to connect tubes or close apertures, whereas the language of heading 73.05 expressly contemplates tubes and pipes that may be welded or similarly closed. Applying the literal meaning of the tariff entries, the classification under heading 7307.00 was rejected and the goods were placed under heading 7305.90. The objection based on alternative remedy was also rejected, as the rule is one of discretion and does not bar writ jurisdiction where the levy depends on an erroneous tariff interpretation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 19 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47764</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>