<?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>1990 (3) TMI 164 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80450</link>
    <description>Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) was held not to qualify for exemption under Notification No. 284/76-Cus. because its essential character was that of a navigation aid, not an apparatus for wireless reception in a single unit with transmitting apparatus; the fact that it operated through transmission and reception principles was insufficient. On tariff classification, the record showed that the lower authorities had not properly examined the alternative headings suggested for DME, so the matter was remanded to the Collector for fresh consideration of classification. The exemption claim therefore failed on merits, while the classification question was reopened for determination.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2011 18:31:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=117596" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (3) TMI 164 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80450</link>
      <description>Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) was held not to qualify for exemption under Notification No. 284/76-Cus. because its essential character was that of a navigation aid, not an apparatus for wireless reception in a single unit with transmitting apparatus; the fact that it operated through transmission and reception principles was insufficient. On tariff classification, the record showed that the lower authorities had not properly examined the alternative headings suggested for DME, so the matter was remanded to the Collector for fresh consideration of classification. The exemption claim therefore failed on merits, while the classification question was reopened for determination.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80450</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>