<?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>1991 (7) TMI 196 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81483</link>
    <description>An automatic flexographic plate processor used exclusively to prepare printing plates was classified under Tariff Heading 84.34, not under Tariff Heading 90.10 or the alternative Heading 84.35. The Tribunal applied the commercial parlance principle, holding that where tariff terms are not specially defined they must be understood in the sense in which the trade understands them. On that basis, the machine was treated as printing-related machinery rather than photographic or photocopying apparatus, and the departmental classification was rejected. The CCCN explanatory notes were treated only as persuasive and not overriding the classification based on the nature and use of the goods.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jul 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Jun 2011 15:03:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=118628" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (7) TMI 196 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81483</link>
      <description>An automatic flexographic plate processor used exclusively to prepare printing plates was classified under Tariff Heading 84.34, not under Tariff Heading 90.10 or the alternative Heading 84.35. The Tribunal applied the commercial parlance principle, holding that where tariff terms are not specially defined they must be understood in the sense in which the trade understands them. On that basis, the machine was treated as printing-related machinery rather than photographic or photocopying apparatus, and the departmental classification was rejected. The CCCN explanatory notes were treated only as persuasive and not overriding the classification based on the nature and use of the goods.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jul 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81483</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>