<?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 (5) TMI 161 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86951</link>
    <description>Rechargeable storage batteries classifiable as electric accumulators under Heading 85.07 were held not to be consumer goods for import-control purposes. The classification under the Customs Tariff and the HSN Explanatory Notes, which distinguish rechargeable batteries from primary cells, supported the view that such goods require charging and are not goods for direct consumer use. Applying earlier Tribunal reasoning on nickel-cadmium rechargeable batteries, the imported batteries were found outside the Negative List of the relevant Import Policy and did not require an import licence. The Revenue&#039;s challenge to their importability failed and the impugned orders were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Aug 2011 15:47:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124018" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (5) TMI 161 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86951</link>
      <description>Rechargeable storage batteries classifiable as electric accumulators under Heading 85.07 were held not to be consumer goods for import-control purposes. The classification under the Customs Tariff and the HSN Explanatory Notes, which distinguish rechargeable batteries from primary cells, supported the view that such goods require charging and are not goods for direct consumer use. Applying earlier Tribunal reasoning on nickel-cadmium rechargeable batteries, the imported batteries were found outside the Negative List of the relevant Import Policy and did not require an import licence. The Revenue&#039;s challenge to their importability failed and the impugned orders were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86951</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>