<?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 (10) TMI 158 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82097</link>
    <description>Contactors were held not to be &quot;switches&quot; for purposes of Notification No. 160/86 because technical literature, HSN notes and market practice treated the two as distinct commercial commodities. Applying the trade parlance test, the tribunal noted that a contactor is a device for repeatedly opening and closing circuits, generally operating automatically, and differs in design and identity from a mechanically operated switch. The tariff scheme also recognised switches and relays as separate goods. As a result, the exclusion for switches did not apply and the assessee remained eligible for exemption; the Revenue&#039;s appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Oct 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Jul 2011 18:34:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=119242" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (10) TMI 158 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82097</link>
      <description>Contactors were held not to be &quot;switches&quot; for purposes of Notification No. 160/86 because technical literature, HSN notes and market practice treated the two as distinct commercial commodities. Applying the trade parlance test, the tribunal noted that a contactor is a device for repeatedly opening and closing circuits, generally operating automatically, and differs in design and identity from a mechanically operated switch. The tariff scheme also recognised switches and relays as separate goods. As a result, the exclusion for switches did not apply and the assessee remained eligible for exemption; the Revenue&#039;s appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Oct 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82097</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>