<?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>2008 (3) TMI 31 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3589</link>
    <description>Body-built motor cabs manufactured on duty-paid chassis were treated as manufactured goods, and tariff classification turned on the vehicle&#039;s actual designed and registered seating capacity rather than the chassis manufacturer&#039;s invoice description. The specific heading for motor vehicles designed to carry more than six but not more than twelve persons, excluding the driver, was applied where the finished vehicle answered that description, leaving the residuary heading inapplicable. For tariff purposes, the substantive characteristics of the completed vehicle and its registration particulars prevailed over the invoice classification used for the chassis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2014 17:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=42941" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (3) TMI 31 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3589</link>
      <description>Body-built motor cabs manufactured on duty-paid chassis were treated as manufactured goods, and tariff classification turned on the vehicle&#039;s actual designed and registered seating capacity rather than the chassis manufacturer&#039;s invoice description. The specific heading for motor vehicles designed to carry more than six but not more than twelve persons, excluding the driver, was applied where the finished vehicle answered that description, leaving the residuary heading inapplicable. For tariff purposes, the substantive characteristics of the completed vehicle and its registration particulars prevailed over the invoice classification used for the chassis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3589</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>