<?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 265 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84391</link>
    <description>Imported gauges were held eligible for exemption under Notification No. 394-Cus., dated 2-8-1976, because exemption turns on the plain language of the tariff entry and the notification. The Tribunal applied the Bombay High Court principle that classification under a different heading does not by itself defeat exemption if the notification otherwise covers the goods. On that basis, the gauges fell within the notification and the alternative exemption claim was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:31:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121535" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (3) TMI 265 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84391</link>
      <description>Imported gauges were held eligible for exemption under Notification No. 394-Cus., dated 2-8-1976, because exemption turns on the plain language of the tariff entry and the notification. The Tribunal applied the Bombay High Court principle that classification under a different heading does not by itself defeat exemption if the notification otherwise covers the goods. On that basis, the gauges fell within the notification and the alternative exemption claim was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84391</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>