TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an aerial passenger ropeway system assembled and erected at site from separately procured components could be treated as goods removed in unassembled or disassembled condition so as to fall under the cited tariff heading, and whether the duty demand and penalties could be sustained.
Analysis: Rule 2(a) of the interpretative rules applies only where goods are removed in unassembled or disassembled condition but already possess the essential character of the finished article. On the facts, the various components were received at site over time, substantial erection and installation activities were carried out in stages, and the ropeway system came into existence only after assembly and erection at the customer's site. Such a situation was held not to amount to clearance of a complete ropeway system in unassembled or disassembled form. Reliance was placed on the earlier view that where site assembly results in the emergence of the finished system only at installation, Rule 2(a) does not apply. The contrary authority was distinguished because it did not involve interpretation of Rule 2(a) in the same manner.
Conclusion: The ropeway system was not excisable as an aerial passenger ropeway system in unassembled or disassembled form under the cited tariff heading, and the duty demand and consequential penalties were unsustainable.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
