<?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>2000 (1) TMI 78 - CEGAT, COURT NO. III, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49751</link>
    <description>Micro cellular rubber sheets manufactured with EVA were discussed in the context of tariff classification between synthetic rubber and plastic goods under Chapter 40. The classification depended on the prescribed statutory tests, but the sample examined was drawn from finished goods rather than a proper sample meeting the conditions in Note 4, so the test report could not safely support the entry adopted. The adjudicating order also lacked adequate reasons on customer confirmations and duty quantification. The matter therefore required retesting of a proper sample and fresh, reasoned adjudication on classification, duty liability and the evidence, after hearing the assessee and following natural justice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Aug 2010 12:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88231" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (1) TMI 78 - CEGAT, COURT NO. III, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49751</link>
      <description>Micro cellular rubber sheets manufactured with EVA were discussed in the context of tariff classification between synthetic rubber and plastic goods under Chapter 40. The classification depended on the prescribed statutory tests, but the sample examined was drawn from finished goods rather than a proper sample meeting the conditions in Note 4, so the test report could not safely support the entry adopted. The adjudicating order also lacked adequate reasons on customer confirmations and duty quantification. The matter therefore required retesting of a proper sample and fresh, reasoned adjudication on classification, duty liability and the evidence, after hearing the assessee and following natural justice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49751</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>