<?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 (8) TMI 277 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166649</link>
    <description>Copper-coated steel submerged arc welding wires and CO2 wires were held not classifiable as welding electrodes under Item 50 of the Central Excise Tariff because the entry did not refer to end use and classification had to depend on commercial identity. The Department bore the burden of proving that the goods were known in trade as electrodes, but produced no material to do so. The accepted factual position was also that electric current did not pass through the wires during welding. On that basis, mere use in welding was insufficient, the phrase &quot;all sorts&quot; could not expand the entry, and the duty demand, penalty and confiscation could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Aug 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Oct 2014 18:46:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=367688" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (8) TMI 277 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166649</link>
      <description>Copper-coated steel submerged arc welding wires and CO2 wires were held not classifiable as welding electrodes under Item 50 of the Central Excise Tariff because the entry did not refer to end use and classification had to depend on commercial identity. The Department bore the burden of proving that the goods were known in trade as electrodes, but produced no material to do so. The accepted factual position was also that electric current did not pass through the wires during welding. On that basis, mere use in welding was insufficient, the phrase &quot;all sorts&quot; could not expand the entry, and the duty demand, penalty and confiscation could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Aug 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166649</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>