<?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 216 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87007</link>
    <description>Carbide throwaway inserts, plugs and rods were examined for classification under Tariff Item No. 68 or Tariff Item No. 62, and the text notes that reclassification after a show cause notice could operate only prospectively once the earlier accepted classification was displaced. On merits, the claim that the plugs and rods were not tool tips, or that they served as wear-resisting parts and measuring gauges, was not supported by evidence. The document also notes that measuring gauges were classifiable under Tariff Item No. 51A at the relevant time, that the goods were not shown to be machine components, and that no trader evidence was produced to prove market understanding as tool tips. The classification under Tariff Item No. 62 was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Aug 2011 18:16:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124074" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (5) TMI 216 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87007</link>
      <description>Carbide throwaway inserts, plugs and rods were examined for classification under Tariff Item No. 68 or Tariff Item No. 62, and the text notes that reclassification after a show cause notice could operate only prospectively once the earlier accepted classification was displaced. On merits, the claim that the plugs and rods were not tool tips, or that they served as wear-resisting parts and measuring gauges, was not supported by evidence. The document also notes that measuring gauges were classifiable under Tariff Item No. 51A at the relevant time, that the goods were not shown to be machine components, and that no trader evidence was produced to prove market understanding as tool tips. The classification under Tariff Item No. 62 was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87007</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>