<?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>1995 (3) TMI 193 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84029</link>
    <description>An exemption notification for tool room precision co-ordinate jig boring machines was construed strictly on its plain wording, using common parlance to identify the commercial description of the imported machine. Because the goods were shown by technical literature to be a general purpose, multi-functional machine capable of drilling, boring, reaming, countersinking, facing and milling, they did not clearly answer the exemption description. The Tribunal treated technical literature only as an aid and held that certificates or recommendations could not enlarge the notification beyond its terms. The machine was therefore held outside Serial No. 2 of Notification No. 40/78-Cus., and the exemption was denied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2011 14:12:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121173" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (3) TMI 193 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84029</link>
      <description>An exemption notification for tool room precision co-ordinate jig boring machines was construed strictly on its plain wording, using common parlance to identify the commercial description of the imported machine. Because the goods were shown by technical literature to be a general purpose, multi-functional machine capable of drilling, boring, reaming, countersinking, facing and milling, they did not clearly answer the exemption description. The Tribunal treated technical literature only as an aid and held that certificates or recommendations could not enlarge the notification beyond its terms. The machine was therefore held outside Serial No. 2 of Notification No. 40/78-Cus., and the exemption was denied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84029</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>