<?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>1986 (7) TMI 255 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72393</link>
    <description>Tariff Heading 84.59(2) was treated as the more specific entry for machinery designed to produce marketable commodities, and the residuary Heading 84.59(1) could be used only after excluding classification under sub-heading (2). A machine that cut foam blocks into marketable products such as sheets, carpet underlays and mattresses was therefore classifiable under Heading 84.59(2). The registration certificate and catalogue were not controlling for Customs classification, and the fact that the heading expressly mentioned only some cutting machines did not exclude other cutting machines that produce commodities. The Revenue&#039;s challenge on classification therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 May 2011 11:55:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=110672" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (7) TMI 255 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72393</link>
      <description>Tariff Heading 84.59(2) was treated as the more specific entry for machinery designed to produce marketable commodities, and the residuary Heading 84.59(1) could be used only after excluding classification under sub-heading (2). A machine that cut foam blocks into marketable products such as sheets, carpet underlays and mattresses was therefore classifiable under Heading 84.59(2). The registration certificate and catalogue were not controlling for Customs classification, and the fact that the heading expressly mentioned only some cutting machines did not exclude other cutting machines that produce commodities. The Revenue&#039;s challenge on classification therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72393</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>