<?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 (3) TMI 345 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93320</link>
    <description>Plastic articles supplied to ordinance factories were examined for tariff classification under Chapter 93 as parts of arms and ammunition, or under Chapter 39 as articles of general use of plastics. The text notes that Chapter 93 excludes goods covered as parts of general use, including similar plastic goods, and that items such as containers, washers, rings, tubes and locking devices were ordinary plastic components without any special design showing exclusive use as ammunition parts. Mere supply to ordinance factories was held insufficient to prove exclusive end-use. In classification disputes, the Revenue bears the burden of proving the proposed tariff entry, and that burden was not discharged here.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2011 18:16:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130381" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (3) TMI 345 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93320</link>
      <description>Plastic articles supplied to ordinance factories were examined for tariff classification under Chapter 93 as parts of arms and ammunition, or under Chapter 39 as articles of general use of plastics. The text notes that Chapter 93 excludes goods covered as parts of general use, including similar plastic goods, and that items such as containers, washers, rings, tubes and locking devices were ordinary plastic components without any special design showing exclusive use as ammunition parts. Mere supply to ordinance factories was held insufficient to prove exclusive end-use. In classification disputes, the Revenue bears the burden of proving the proposed tariff entry, and that burden was not discharged here.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93320</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>