<?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 (4) TMI 347 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80114</link>
    <description>Imported step and repeat machines were held classifiable under Heading 84.40 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 rather than Heading 90.10 because the Tribunal followed its earlier decisions on identical goods and found no reason to depart from that classification view. Arguments for Heading 90.10 were rejected on the same reasoning adopted in the prior orders, and the assessee succeeded on the classification issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Jun 2011 18:27:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=117260" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (4) TMI 347 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80114</link>
      <description>Imported step and repeat machines were held classifiable under Heading 84.40 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 rather than Heading 90.10 because the Tribunal followed its earlier decisions on identical goods and found no reason to depart from that classification view. Arguments for Heading 90.10 were rejected on the same reasoning adopted in the prior orders, and the assessee succeeded on the classification issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80114</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>