<?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>1983 (1) TMI 260 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165949</link>
    <description>Rubber tubing of unhardened vulcanised rubber was treated as falling within item 16A(3) of the Central Excise Tariff because the goods answered the tariff description as ordinary rubber tubing, and the entry did not limit classification by end use. The fact that the tubing was intended for use as a sealing channel in railway coaches did not alter its tariff classification. The exemption in Notification No. 197/67-C.E. for piping and tubing designed to be component parts of machinery articles was held inapplicable because railway coaches and their glass or window shutters were not machinery articles. The classification was therefore upheld and exemption denied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jan 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2014 15:22:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=363340" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (1) TMI 260 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165949</link>
      <description>Rubber tubing of unhardened vulcanised rubber was treated as falling within item 16A(3) of the Central Excise Tariff because the goods answered the tariff description as ordinary rubber tubing, and the entry did not limit classification by end use. The fact that the tubing was intended for use as a sealing channel in railway coaches did not alter its tariff classification. The exemption in Notification No. 197/67-C.E. for piping and tubing designed to be component parts of machinery articles was held inapplicable because railway coaches and their glass or window shutters were not machinery articles. The classification was therefore upheld and exemption denied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jan 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165949</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>