<?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>1984 (10) TMI 237 - CEGAT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167488</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld its decision that the stapler imported was not classified as an industrial machine according to the I.T.C. Policy. The Tribunal found the stapler did not meet the criteria for an industrial stapling machine based on factual analysis, emphasizing the absence of a legal question. The applicant&#039;s arguments based on legal principles from previous cases were dismissed, as the issue was deemed a question of fact. The Tribunal determined that no legal interpretation of the policy was necessary, as the nature of the stapler and its compliance with policy requirements were clear, leading to the rejection of the Reference Application.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 27 Oct 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Dec 2014 12:16:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=371857" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (10) TMI 237 - CEGAT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167488</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld its decision that the stapler imported was not classified as an industrial machine according to the I.T.C. Policy. The Tribunal found the stapler did not meet the criteria for an industrial stapling machine based on factual analysis, emphasizing the absence of a legal question. The applicant&#039;s arguments based on legal principles from previous cases were dismissed, as the issue was deemed a question of fact. The Tribunal determined that no legal interpretation of the policy was necessary, as the nature of the stapler and its compliance with policy requirements were clear, leading to the rejection of the Reference Application.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 27 Oct 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167488</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>