Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.24 seconds)
Kolkata(Port) vs Hi Tech Cellphone Pvt Ltd on 31 July, 2024 cites

M/S. Modi Xerox Limited vs C.C.E. Meerut on 24 November, 2000

Relying on this the further contention of the counsel is that Section Note 2 of Section XVI provides mandate for classification of the parts of machines falling under Section XVI. in terms of Rule 1 of interpretative Rules, Invocation of Rule 2(a) for certain categories of goods covered in Section XVI like the goods of CTVs are prohibited. For this the learned counsel relied on the decision in Modi Xerox (supra). In that view the learned counsel says that Rule 2(a) would not be applicable at all. This question needs no consideration here particularly in view of the interpretation that we have given to Rule 2(a). On facts, we have already found that Rule 2(a) would not be applicable to the present case since there is no question of the goods having the essential character of CTVs. In that view, the question of applicability of Section 2(a) on this account need not be gone into in this judgment.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 13 - Full Document
1   2 Next