<?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>1987 (6) TMI 261 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74204</link>
    <description>Imported Automatic Plate Processor Unit was held classifiable under Heading 90.10 after the Tribunal preferred that heading over Heading 84.34 on the material before it. That classification was upheld, and the assessee&#039;s claim to exemption under Notification No. 11/77-Cus. failed because the notification conditions were not met once the goods were treated as falling under Heading 90.10. The departmental view on classification was sustained and the exemption benefit was denied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Jun 2011 13:16:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=112483" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (6) TMI 261 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74204</link>
      <description>Imported Automatic Plate Processor Unit was held classifiable under Heading 90.10 after the Tribunal preferred that heading over Heading 84.34 on the material before it. That classification was upheld, and the assessee&#039;s claim to exemption under Notification No. 11/77-Cus. failed because the notification conditions were not met once the goods were treated as falling under Heading 90.10. The departmental view on classification was sustained and the exemption benefit was denied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74204</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>