Loading...

⚠ โœ•
❮ Top
☎ Help
Draft upto 3 replies to a
tax notice โ€” FREE ๐ŸŽ‰ โœ•

150 credits ยท 30 days

โ€ข Basic Search โ†’ 1 Credit
โ€ข Advanced Search โ†’ 3 Credits
โ€ข Drafter โ†’ 20 to extract + 25 per issue
(โ‰ˆ upto 2-3 drafts on us)

Already used our earlier 20-Credit Demo?
You are still eligible for this new 150-Credit Demo.

Activate your FREE Demo โ†’
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedbackโœ•

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

1981 (9) TMI 288

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ernment of India have considered the points raised in the revision application, those urged at the time of personal hearing and have examined the records of the case. 2. Government observe that the issue involved in this case is whether clearance of projector heads, sound heads and arc lamps manufactured by the assessee and sold together would constitute clearance of a complete cinematogra....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....petitioner if the intention of Government was otherwise the said explanation would have read "in a assembled condition or otherwise" and not "in a completely assembled condition or otherwise". And therefore according to the petitioner by virtue of the said explanation whether the projector is capable of functioning at the time of clearance or not is irrelevant for the purposes of assessment. Gover....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or. 4. The petitioners have also contended that from a reading of Notification 99/72, dated 17-3-1972 as well as Notification No. 100/72, dated 17-3-1972 it is obvious that a combination of projector head, sound head and arc lamp is not classifiable as parts of cinematograph projector. According to the petitioner the practice all along had been to assess the combination of projector head, ....