<?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>1998 (9) TMI 274 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90181</link>
    <description>Imported desktop electronic filing systems were treated as document-management machines for keeping and retrieving files, not as automatic data processing machines under Chapter Note 5A(a) to Chapter 84. The HSN-aligned tariff entry and its explanatory notes were given persuasive value, and machines operating only on fixed programmes were held to fall outside Tariff Heading 84.71. A departmental clarification was not treated as decisive because the competing tariff entries and relevant notes were not shown to have been before that authority. On confiscation, prior departmental practice supporting a different classification justified a more lenient view, and the redemption fine was reduced.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2011 12:10:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127243" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (9) TMI 274 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90181</link>
      <description>Imported desktop electronic filing systems were treated as document-management machines for keeping and retrieving files, not as automatic data processing machines under Chapter Note 5A(a) to Chapter 84. The HSN-aligned tariff entry and its explanatory notes were given persuasive value, and machines operating only on fixed programmes were held to fall outside Tariff Heading 84.71. A departmental clarification was not treated as decisive because the competing tariff entries and relevant notes were not shown to have been before that authority. On confiscation, prior departmental practice supporting a different classification justified a more lenient view, and the redemption fine was reduced.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90181</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>