<?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>1980 (4) TMI 126 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41185</link>
    <description>Shock Dampened Front Buffer Push Plates and the Rear Dehitching Device fitted to a shunter were held to be essential parts of the shunter, not weight lifting or similar material handling equipment within the explanation to Tariff Item 34. The exclusion was confined to motor vehicles fitted with specialised equipment of the kind described in the tariff explanation, and these goods did not answer that description. The analogy to a platform elevator was rejected because that item was treated as weight lifting equipment, whereas the disputed fittings stood on a different footing. The claim for exclusion therefore failed and the revision application was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 31 May 2010 11:02:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79716" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (4) TMI 126 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41185</link>
      <description>Shock Dampened Front Buffer Push Plates and the Rear Dehitching Device fitted to a shunter were held to be essential parts of the shunter, not weight lifting or similar material handling equipment within the explanation to Tariff Item 34. The exclusion was confined to motor vehicles fitted with specialised equipment of the kind described in the tariff explanation, and these goods did not answer that description. The analogy to a platform elevator was rejected because that item was treated as weight lifting equipment, whereas the disputed fittings stood on a different footing. The claim for exclusion therefore failed and the revision application was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41185</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>