<?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 (11) TMI 175 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82186</link>
    <description>Copper moulds and copper mould tubes used as parts of casting machines were treated as eligible for auxiliary customs duty exemption under Serial No. 37 of Notification No. 112/87-Cus. because the notification expressly covered casting machines of a kind used in metallurgy and metal foundries, including their parts. The fact that the goods were classified under Heading 98.06 as parts of machinery did not defeat the specific exemption, especially where customs authorities had themselves identified them as parts of casting machines. The commentary states that a broader tariff classification cannot override a clear exemption for a named article and its parts, and the refund rejection was therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Jul 2011 15:36:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=119331" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (11) TMI 175 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82186</link>
      <description>Copper moulds and copper mould tubes used as parts of casting machines were treated as eligible for auxiliary customs duty exemption under Serial No. 37 of Notification No. 112/87-Cus. because the notification expressly covered casting machines of a kind used in metallurgy and metal foundries, including their parts. The fact that the goods were classified under Heading 98.06 as parts of machinery did not defeat the specific exemption, especially where customs authorities had themselves identified them as parts of casting machines. The commentary states that a broader tariff classification cannot override a clear exemption for a named article and its parts, and the refund rejection was therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82186</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>