<?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>1997 (2) TMI 234 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86426</link>
    <description>A welding simulator used exclusively for training and demonstration of welding skills was held classifiable under Heading 90.21 as an instrument, apparatus or model designed solely for demonstrational purposes and unsuitable for other uses. The literature, technical material, and Chartered Engineer&#039;s certificate showed that it was kept in a welding training centre and could not function as a full-fledged welding machine. In the classification dispute, the burden remained on the Revenue to prove capability of other use, but no rebuttal evidence was produced. On that record, Heading 85.18/27(1) was rejected and classification under Heading 90.21 was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:19:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123493" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (2) TMI 234 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86426</link>
      <description>A welding simulator used exclusively for training and demonstration of welding skills was held classifiable under Heading 90.21 as an instrument, apparatus or model designed solely for demonstrational purposes and unsuitable for other uses. The literature, technical material, and Chartered Engineer&#039;s certificate showed that it was kept in a welding training centre and could not function as a full-fledged welding machine. In the classification dispute, the burden remained on the Revenue to prove capability of other use, but no rebuttal evidence was produced. On that record, Heading 85.18/27(1) was rejected and classification under Heading 90.21 was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86426</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>