<?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 301 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74662</link>
    <description>Grinding discs used as spare parts in crushers for pulverising soda ash were held classifiable under the specific tariff entry for machinery used in crushing and grinding, not under the residuary entry. The classification exercise was based on the Customs Tariff Act text itself, with the goods&#039; principal function and use determining the proper heading. The Tribunal treated the specific entry as covering crushing and grinding machinery and found no basis to prefer the residuary provision merely because the goods were parts of equipment. Reference to CCCN explanatory notes was declined where no parallel tariff provision existed, and the specific coverage prevailed over the general residuary entry.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Jun 2011 12:33:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=112941" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (7) TMI 301 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74662</link>
      <description>Grinding discs used as spare parts in crushers for pulverising soda ash were held classifiable under the specific tariff entry for machinery used in crushing and grinding, not under the residuary entry. The classification exercise was based on the Customs Tariff Act text itself, with the goods&#039; principal function and use determining the proper heading. The Tribunal treated the specific entry as covering crushing and grinding machinery and found no basis to prefer the residuary provision merely because the goods were parts of equipment. Reference to CCCN explanatory notes was declined where no parallel tariff provision existed, and the specific coverage prevailed over the general residuary entry.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74662</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>