<?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 268 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86165</link>
    <description>Goods described in invoices and the assessee&#039;s records as flame-proof starters were held to fall within the specific tariff entry for motor starters, because added features such as flame-proof construction, reversing function, short-circuit protection and current transformers did not take them outside that description. The residuary entry was therefore inapplicable. The extended period of limitation was also upheld because the assessee classified the goods as LT and HT switchboard items despite clearing starters, and that incomplete and wrong description was found to have misled the department. The appeal failed on both classification and limitation, and the departmental orders were sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Aug 2011 15:44:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123232" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (10) TMI 268 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86165</link>
      <description>Goods described in invoices and the assessee&#039;s records as flame-proof starters were held to fall within the specific tariff entry for motor starters, because added features such as flame-proof construction, reversing function, short-circuit protection and current transformers did not take them outside that description. The residuary entry was therefore inapplicable. The extended period of limitation was also upheld because the assessee classified the goods as LT and HT switchboard items despite clearing starters, and that incomplete and wrong description was found to have misled the department. The appeal failed on both classification and limitation, and the departmental orders were sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86165</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>