https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73143 The Tribunal classified the "Trainer" under Central Excise Tariff Item (TI) 68 instead of TI 33DD, ruling it did not meet the criteria of a computer due to its inability to perform essential computer functions. Expert opinions supporting TI 68 were deemed significant despite lacking detailed reasoning. The Tribunal emphasized the trade and common understanding of the term "computer," concluding that the "Trainer" did not align with such understanding. As a result, the penalty was set aside, and the appeals were disposed of accordingly, with consequential reliefs to follow. en-us Mon, 25 May 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 May 2011 13:16:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73143 The Tribunal classified the "Trainer" under Central Excise Tariff Item (TI) 68 instead of TI 33DD, ruling it did not meet the criteria of a computer due to its inability to perform essential computer functions. Expert opinions supporting TI 68 were deemed significant despite lacking detailed reasoning. The Tribunal emphasized the trade and common understanding of the term "computer," concluding that the "Trainer" did not align with such understanding. As a result, the penalty was set aside, and the appeals were disposed of accordingly, with consequential reliefs to follow. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 25 May 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73143