https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86075 A Vickers Hardness Tester remained covered by Notification No. 49/78 even though it could also test hardness by Knoop and Scratch methods. The decisive factor was that the goods were described in the bill of entry, invoice and technical literature as a Vickers Hardness Tester, and the machine was commercially known by that description. Its ability to perform additional testing methods did not exclude it from the exemption where the notification extended benefit to the instrument as such, consistent with an earlier Tribunal view on a similar machine. The exemption was therefore available and the appeal succeeded. en-us Mon, 09 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Aug 2011 10:52:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86075 A Vickers Hardness Tester remained covered by Notification No. 49/78 even though it could also test hardness by Knoop and Scratch methods. The decisive factor was that the goods were described in the bill of entry, invoice and technical literature as a Vickers Hardness Tester, and the machine was commercially known by that description. Its ability to perform additional testing methods did not exclude it from the exemption where the notification extended benefit to the instrument as such, consistent with an earlier Tribunal view on a similar machine. The exemption was therefore available and the appeal succeeded. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 09 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86075