<?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>1996 (7) TMI 225 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85384</link>
    <description>A laboratory lyophiliser used for research and small-batch production was held not to fall within Tariff Item 29A for refrigerating or air-conditioning appliances. The equipment was treated as special-purpose freeze drier apparatus with laboratory accessories, not as a ready-assembled refrigerator or similar appliance ordinarily sold in commercial form. Its essential character and commercial use, rather than the presence of temperature control, governed classification. The broader tariff history, including earlier treatment under Tariff Item 68 and later assessment under Tariff Item 84.19, supported this view. The Revenue&#039;s challenge failed, and the classification in favour of the assessee was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Aug 2011 16:32:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122451" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (7) TMI 225 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85384</link>
      <description>A laboratory lyophiliser used for research and small-batch production was held not to fall within Tariff Item 29A for refrigerating or air-conditioning appliances. The equipment was treated as special-purpose freeze drier apparatus with laboratory accessories, not as a ready-assembled refrigerator or similar appliance ordinarily sold in commercial form. Its essential character and commercial use, rather than the presence of temperature control, governed classification. The broader tariff history, including earlier treatment under Tariff Item 68 and later assessment under Tariff Item 84.19, supported this view. The Revenue&#039;s challenge failed, and the classification in favour of the assessee was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85384</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>