<?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>1986 (4) TMI 155 - BEFORE THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72222</link>
    <description>The judgment favored the appellants, ruling that the High Quality Colour Video Monitor should be classified under T.I. 68 as a Measuring Instrument for Video Production Lines, not under T.I. 37BB as Television Receivers/Recorders. The decision was based on the lack of Image and Sound features in the product, supported by customs duty charges and common understanding, ultimately setting aside the Assistant Collector&#039;s order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Apr 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 May 2011 13:39:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=110501" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (4) TMI 155 - BEFORE THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72222</link>
      <description>The judgment favored the appellants, ruling that the High Quality Colour Video Monitor should be classified under T.I. 68 as a Measuring Instrument for Video Production Lines, not under T.I. 37BB as Television Receivers/Recorders. The decision was based on the lack of Image and Sound features in the product, supported by customs duty charges and common understanding, ultimately setting aside the Assistant Collector&#039;s order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Apr 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72222</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>