<?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>2004 (12) TMI 213 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53643</link>
    <description>Imported scrap declared as heavy melting scrap was not treated as misdeclared because the consignment was imported by an actual user for melting and the Revenue did not dispute that it consisted mainly of old and used rails and sleepers. The presence of a small doubtful portion did not change the character of the goods as melting scrap, and any concern about re-rollable pieces could be addressed by mutilation rather than confiscation. The claimed benefit under Notification No. 21/02-Cus. was therefore available, and confiscation for misdeclaration was not sustainable; the appellate order was upheld and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Oct 2010 13:58:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92120" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (12) TMI 213 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53643</link>
      <description>Imported scrap declared as heavy melting scrap was not treated as misdeclared because the consignment was imported by an actual user for melting and the Revenue did not dispute that it consisted mainly of old and used rails and sleepers. The presence of a small doubtful portion did not change the character of the goods as melting scrap, and any concern about re-rollable pieces could be addressed by mutilation rather than confiscation. The claimed benefit under Notification No. 21/02-Cus. was therefore available, and confiscation for misdeclaration was not sustainable; the appellate order was upheld and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53643</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>