<?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 (10) TMI 244 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86030</link>
    <description>An imported gear shaper cutter sharpener with a detachable attachment was treated as eligible for concessional duty under Notification No. 40/78 because the machine and attachment performed different functions separately, not simultaneously. The attachment was characterised as an accessory used for spur cutting, while the main machine was designed for helical cutters, so the import was not regarded as a composite machine on the facts shown by the invoice, literature and catalogue. The analysis also states that section note 3 of Section XVI was not accepted as a basis for departing from the plain language of the exemption notification, which was applied according to its terms.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Aug 2011 17:19:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123097" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (10) TMI 244 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86030</link>
      <description>An imported gear shaper cutter sharpener with a detachable attachment was treated as eligible for concessional duty under Notification No. 40/78 because the machine and attachment performed different functions separately, not simultaneously. The attachment was characterised as an accessory used for spur cutting, while the main machine was designed for helical cutters, so the import was not regarded as a composite machine on the facts shown by the invoice, literature and catalogue. The analysis also states that section note 3 of Section XVI was not accepted as a basis for departing from the plain language of the exemption notification, which was applied according to its terms.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86030</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>