<?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>1994 (8) TMI 139 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83568</link>
    <description>An automatic reprogrammable industrial robot used for car washing was held not to fall within Heading 8424.89, because that entry is limited to mechanical appliances for projecting, dispersing or spraying liquids or powders. The machine performed multiple washing operations, including brush movement, pressure control, superfoaming, wheel washing, underchassis washing, waxing and drying, so it was not confined to the limited spraying function covered by that heading. Residual Heading 8479.89 was therefore applicable because no specific heading squarely covered the goods. The classification was upheld against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Aug 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Jul 2011 12:36:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120713" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (8) TMI 139 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83568</link>
      <description>An automatic reprogrammable industrial robot used for car washing was held not to fall within Heading 8424.89, because that entry is limited to mechanical appliances for projecting, dispersing or spraying liquids or powders. The machine performed multiple washing operations, including brush movement, pressure control, superfoaming, wheel washing, underchassis washing, waxing and drying, so it was not confined to the limited spraying function covered by that heading. Residual Heading 8479.89 was therefore applicable because no specific heading squarely covered the goods. The classification was upheld against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Aug 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83568</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>