<?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 (9) TMI 278 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53690</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the Revenue&#039;s appeal (C/678/04), overturning the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, and dismissed the importer&#039;s appeal (C/692/04). It was determined that ductile pipes used for water distribution or transmission do not qualify for classification under Customs Tariff Heading 9801, nor are they eligible for exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. The Tribunal emphasized that the pipes do not constitute machinery or components for water treatment plants, and the importer&#039;s failure to register the contract before importation violated the Project Imports Regulation 1986. Consequently, the registration application for project imports was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Jun 2024 10:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92167" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (9) TMI 278 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53690</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the Revenue&#039;s appeal (C/678/04), overturning the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, and dismissed the importer&#039;s appeal (C/692/04). It was determined that ductile pipes used for water distribution or transmission do not qualify for classification under Customs Tariff Heading 9801, nor are they eligible for exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. The Tribunal emphasized that the pipes do not constitute machinery or components for water treatment plants, and the importer&#039;s failure to register the contract before importation violated the Project Imports Regulation 1986. Consequently, the registration application for project imports was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53690</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>