<?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 (9) TMI 269 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74494</link>
    <description>An imported coil winding machine did not qualify for exemption under Notification No. 118/80-Cus. because the importer failed to show that it was designed for use in the electronic industry. Although described as an automatic precision machine, the catalogue did not support that claim, and the evidence showed only a semi-automatic wire-feeding function rather than full automation. The importer also failed to establish that the coils produced were exclusively for electronic industry use by their rating, size, or functional characteristics, or that the machine had any special feature making it particularly suitable for that industry. The exemption claim therefore failed, and the assessment was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Sep 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Jun 2011 12:15:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=112773" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (9) TMI 269 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74494</link>
      <description>An imported coil winding machine did not qualify for exemption under Notification No. 118/80-Cus. because the importer failed to show that it was designed for use in the electronic industry. Although described as an automatic precision machine, the catalogue did not support that claim, and the evidence showed only a semi-automatic wire-feeding function rather than full automation. The importer also failed to establish that the coils produced were exclusively for electronic industry use by their rating, size, or functional characteristics, or that the machine had any special feature making it particularly suitable for that industry. The exemption claim therefore failed, and the assessment was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Sep 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74494</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>