<?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 (3) TMI 291 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166128</link>
    <description>The Tribunal concluded that the Extrusion Punches are tools but the Can manufacturing machine is not a machine tool. Therefore, the Extrusion Punches should not be classified under Tariff Item 51-A(iii) but under the general heading of Tariff Item No. 68. The assessments should be modified accordingly, and refunds granted if recoveries were made based on the incorrect classification. The appeal was partly allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 12 Mar 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2014 14:49:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=363820" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (3) TMI 291 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166128</link>
      <description>The Tribunal concluded that the Extrusion Punches are tools but the Can manufacturing machine is not a machine tool. Therefore, the Extrusion Punches should not be classified under Tariff Item 51-A(iii) but under the general heading of Tariff Item No. 68. The assessments should be modified accordingly, and refunds granted if recoveries were made based on the incorrect classification. The appeal was partly allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 12 Mar 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166128</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>