<?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>1988 (7) TMI 194 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73808</link>
    <description>Imported aircraft seats and backs designed for fitment in a Boeing 737 were treated as furniture or seats of a kind used for aircraft under Chapter 94, not as aircraft parts under Chapter 88, because the specific furniture heading covered articles used for furnishing aircraft even when bolted to the floor. On that classification, the benefit of Notification No. 145/77-Customs was unavailable on the pleaded basis, and the lower authority&#039;s view was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Jun 2011 16:46:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=112087" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (7) TMI 194 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73808</link>
      <description>Imported aircraft seats and backs designed for fitment in a Boeing 737 were treated as furniture or seats of a kind used for aircraft under Chapter 94, not as aircraft parts under Chapter 88, because the specific furniture heading covered articles used for furnishing aircraft even when bolted to the floor. On that classification, the benefit of Notification No. 145/77-Customs was unavailable on the pleaded basis, and the lower authority&#039;s view was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73808</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>