<?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>1992 (7) TMI 204 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82028</link>
    <description>Photo tubes used as light-sensitive components in a spectrophotometer were classified under Heading 85.18/27 because they formed part of the electronic device and the classification objection was not pursued in a contrary manner. The exemption under Notification No. 172/77-Cus. remained available because the exclusion for electronic valves and tubes used as display devices did not apply: the photo tubes only converted light into electrical signals, while the panel meter performed the display function. On that functional basis, the department&#039;s challenge to the refund and concessional duty benefit failed, and the assessee retained the exemption.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Jul 2011 14:48:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=119173" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (7) TMI 204 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82028</link>
      <description>Photo tubes used as light-sensitive components in a spectrophotometer were classified under Heading 85.18/27 because they formed part of the electronic device and the classification objection was not pursued in a contrary manner. The exemption under Notification No. 172/77-Cus. remained available because the exclusion for electronic valves and tubes used as display devices did not apply: the photo tubes only converted light into electrical signals, while the panel meter performed the display function. On that functional basis, the department&#039;s challenge to the refund and concessional duty benefit failed, and the assessee retained the exemption.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82028</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>