<?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 (8) TMI 381 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100545</link>
    <description>Goods operating on the transformer principle, with primary and secondary coils working by induction, were treated as transformers even though they were used for testing or specialised equipment. The broad transformer heading covered high voltage test transformers, current transformers, capacitor voltage transformers and balancing transformers, while the residuary heading applied only where no specific heading in Chapter 85 covered the goods. On limitation, regular filing and approval of classification lists negatived suppression of facts with intent to evade duty, so the extended period was unavailable and demand could proceed only within the permissible limited period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 17:24:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=137596" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (8) TMI 381 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100545</link>
      <description>Goods operating on the transformer principle, with primary and secondary coils working by induction, were treated as transformers even though they were used for testing or specialised equipment. The broad transformer heading covered high voltage test transformers, current transformers, capacitor voltage transformers and balancing transformers, while the residuary heading applied only where no specific heading in Chapter 85 covered the goods. On limitation, regular filing and approval of classification lists negatived suppression of facts with intent to evade duty, so the extended period was unavailable and demand could proceed only within the permissible limited period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100545</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>