<?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 (5) TMI 109 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84195</link>
    <description>Classification of an off-highway rear dumper with water sprinkler depended on its essential design and ordinary commercial meaning. Because the equipment was specially designed for carrying and sprinkling water in mines, with an enclosed body, valves and sprinklers, it did not answer the ordinary meaning of a dumper and was not classifiable under Tariff Item 34-I(3). For the same reason, it could not qualify for the specific concessional duty entry for dumpers under Notification No. 68/83-C.E.; being an articulated vehicle, it also did not satisfy the entry for three-axled motor vehicles other than articulated vehicles. It therefore fell only under the general motor vehicle entry.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 May 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Jul 2011 12:50:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121339" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (5) TMI 109 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84195</link>
      <description>Classification of an off-highway rear dumper with water sprinkler depended on its essential design and ordinary commercial meaning. Because the equipment was specially designed for carrying and sprinkling water in mines, with an enclosed body, valves and sprinklers, it did not answer the ordinary meaning of a dumper and was not classifiable under Tariff Item 34-I(3). For the same reason, it could not qualify for the specific concessional duty entry for dumpers under Notification No. 68/83-C.E.; being an articulated vehicle, it also did not satisfy the entry for three-axled motor vehicles other than articulated vehicles. It therefore fell only under the general motor vehicle entry.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 May 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84195</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>