<?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>1990 (5) TMI 103 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80458</link>
    <description>Imported boring bar and fitted cutting blades, described and examined as a complete set for use in boring machine tools, were treated as a composite article under the Customs Tariff. Rule 2(a) requires unassembled or disassembled articles to be classified as complete articles, and Rule 3(b) directs classification by the component giving the essential character where a composite article is involved. Because Heading 82.05 specifically covers interchangeable tools for machine tools, including boring tools, the goods could not be split for separate classification under other headings. The departmental assessment was therefore upheld, and the challenge to confiscation and fine also failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 May 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2011 18:48:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=117604" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (5) TMI 103 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80458</link>
      <description>Imported boring bar and fitted cutting blades, described and examined as a complete set for use in boring machine tools, were treated as a composite article under the Customs Tariff. Rule 2(a) requires unassembled or disassembled articles to be classified as complete articles, and Rule 3(b) directs classification by the component giving the essential character where a composite article is involved. Because Heading 82.05 specifically covers interchangeable tools for machine tools, including boring tools, the goods could not be split for separate classification under other headings. The departmental assessment was therefore upheld, and the challenge to confiscation and fine also failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 May 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80458</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>