<?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>1984 (4) TMI 182 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74617</link>
    <description>Complete sets of spare dies for a press were classified as non-interchangeable tools, so they fell under heading 84.45/48 of the Customs Tariff rather than heading 82.05. The classification followed earlier Tribunal reasoning that dies sets lacking interchangeability are not covered by heading 82.05. On that basis, the re-assessment for the disputed item was accepted and the appeal succeeded for that item.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Apr 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Jun 2011 18:44:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=112896" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (4) TMI 182 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74617</link>
      <description>Complete sets of spare dies for a press were classified as non-interchangeable tools, so they fell under heading 84.45/48 of the Customs Tariff rather than heading 82.05. The classification followed earlier Tribunal reasoning that dies sets lacking interchangeability are not covered by heading 82.05. On that basis, the re-assessment for the disputed item was accepted and the appeal succeeded for that item.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Apr 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74617</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>