<?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>2004 (11) TMI 439 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114892</link>
    <description>Dumper placers were examined for classification under Heading 8704.30 and for eligibility to concessional duty or exemption. The concession for dumpers applied only where the goods met the prescribed conditions, including net weight above 8 tonnes, payload of at least 10 tonnes, and design for off-highway use. The record did not show that the respondent&#039;s vehicle satisfied those specifications; the brochure indicated a net weight not exceeding 8 tonnes and capacity not exceeding 4,000 kgs, and the vehicle was used in cities for carrying refuse containers. It was therefore treated as a motor vehicle for transport of goods, not a dumper, and qualified for nil duty under the exemption notification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 10:15:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151891" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (11) TMI 439 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114892</link>
      <description>Dumper placers were examined for classification under Heading 8704.30 and for eligibility to concessional duty or exemption. The concession for dumpers applied only where the goods met the prescribed conditions, including net weight above 8 tonnes, payload of at least 10 tonnes, and design for off-highway use. The record did not show that the respondent&#039;s vehicle satisfied those specifications; the brochure indicated a net weight not exceeding 8 tonnes and capacity not exceeding 4,000 kgs, and the vehicle was used in cities for carrying refuse containers. It was therefore treated as a motor vehicle for transport of goods, not a dumper, and qualified for nil duty under the exemption notification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114892</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>