<?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>1976 (4) TMI 204 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158311</link>
    <description>Pot motors imported separately for Rayon Spinning frames were classified as essential, specially designed component parts of the machinery and not as general electric motors. The Supreme Court held that Item 72(3) of the Indian Customs Tariff, being the specific entry for component parts of machinery, prevailed over Item 73(21), a general entry for electric motors, and that the phrase &quot;not otherwise specified&quot; qualified &quot;machinery&quot; rather than &quot;component parts&quot;. Separate contracts and consignments did not change the classification. The differential customs duty demand was therefore unjustified and liable to be quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Apr 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2014 11:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=332900" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (4) TMI 204 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158311</link>
      <description>Pot motors imported separately for Rayon Spinning frames were classified as essential, specially designed component parts of the machinery and not as general electric motors. The Supreme Court held that Item 72(3) of the Indian Customs Tariff, being the specific entry for component parts of machinery, prevailed over Item 73(21), a general entry for electric motors, and that the phrase &quot;not otherwise specified&quot; qualified &quot;machinery&quot; rather than &quot;component parts&quot;. Separate contracts and consignments did not change the classification. The differential customs duty demand was therefore unjustified and liable to be quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Apr 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158311</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>