<?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 (5) TMI 219 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73971</link>
    <description>Imported tube valves made of copper alloy were held classifiable under Heading 84.61(2) as valves made of corrosion resisting materials, because the tariff description was treated as illustrative rather than confined to the specific metals named. The goods were not excluded merely because they were not lined with rubber, and trade nomenclature could not displace the clear tariff wording. Applying the rule that an article with a reasonable claim to a specific heading should not be forced into a residuary entry, the assessment under the residuary sub-heading was set aside. The valves were also treated as non-return valves, since air flow was one-way and reversal was blocked.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 May 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Jun 2011 17:40:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=112250" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (5) TMI 219 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73971</link>
      <description>Imported tube valves made of copper alloy were held classifiable under Heading 84.61(2) as valves made of corrosion resisting materials, because the tariff description was treated as illustrative rather than confined to the specific metals named. The goods were not excluded merely because they were not lined with rubber, and trade nomenclature could not displace the clear tariff wording. Applying the rule that an article with a reasonable claim to a specific heading should not be forced into a residuary entry, the assessment under the residuary sub-heading was set aside. The valves were also treated as non-return valves, since air flow was one-way and reversal was blocked.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 May 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73971</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>