<?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 232 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30919</link>
    <description>Relays manufactured for supply to Indian Railways were held classifiable under Heading 8536.90, because that heading specifically names relays as electrical apparatus for switching, protecting and connecting circuits. Heading 8530.00, which covers electrical signalling, safety or traffic control equipment for railways, was not applicable since the record did not show that the relays, by themselves, constituted railway signalling or safety equipment. In the absence of documentary material proving a distinct railway-equipment character, the more specific tariff description prevailed over the broader railway heading, and classification was decided in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=69572" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (3) TMI 232 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30919</link>
      <description>Relays manufactured for supply to Indian Railways were held classifiable under Heading 8536.90, because that heading specifically names relays as electrical apparatus for switching, protecting and connecting circuits. Heading 8530.00, which covers electrical signalling, safety or traffic control equipment for railways, was not applicable since the record did not show that the relays, by themselves, constituted railway signalling or safety equipment. In the absence of documentary material proving a distinct railway-equipment character, the more specific tariff description prevailed over the broader railway heading, and classification was decided in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30919</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>