<?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 (3) TMI 225 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72481</link>
    <description>Exemption for imported tractor engine assemblies under Customs law depended on whether the goods could be treated as complete internal combustion piston engines or as incomplete articles with that essential character. The Tribunal applied a strict construction of the exemption entry and read it with the relevant Section Notes, holding that Rule 2(a) alone could not determine entitlement; on that basis, the assemblies did not qualify as complete engines for Notification No. 341/76. It also held that a later amendment to the notification was prospective only and could not be treated as retrospective merely because it was said to be clarificatory. The exemption claim therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Mar 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 May 2011 18:04:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=110760" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (3) TMI 225 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72481</link>
      <description>Exemption for imported tractor engine assemblies under Customs law depended on whether the goods could be treated as complete internal combustion piston engines or as incomplete articles with that essential character. The Tribunal applied a strict construction of the exemption entry and read it with the relevant Section Notes, holding that Rule 2(a) alone could not determine entitlement; on that basis, the assemblies did not qualify as complete engines for Notification No. 341/76. It also held that a later amendment to the notification was prospective only and could not be treated as retrospective merely because it was said to be clarificatory. The exemption claim therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Mar 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72481</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>