<?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 (8) TMI 198 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73817</link>
    <description>Tool cabinets specially designed for use within an industrial plant were not classifiable as steel furniture under Item 40 of the Central Excise Tariff. The governing test was common parlance and trade parlance: an article qualifies as furniture only if it is ordinarily understood as a movable item of convenience or decoration used in a house, office, or similar setting. Specialised goods fabricated for plant functions, lacking commercial identity as ordinary furniture, do not enter the furniture category merely because they are made of steel or resemble cabinets. On that basis, the goods were held outside Item 40 and the departmental classification and duty demand failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Aug 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Jun 2011 17:20:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=112096" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (8) TMI 198 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73817</link>
      <description>Tool cabinets specially designed for use within an industrial plant were not classifiable as steel furniture under Item 40 of the Central Excise Tariff. The governing test was common parlance and trade parlance: an article qualifies as furniture only if it is ordinarily understood as a movable item of convenience or decoration used in a house, office, or similar setting. Specialised goods fabricated for plant functions, lacking commercial identity as ordinary furniture, do not enter the furniture category merely because they are made of steel or resemble cabinets. On that basis, the goods were held outside Item 40 and the departmental classification and duty demand failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Aug 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73817</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>