<?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>1995 (2) TMI 204 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84112</link>
    <description>Polished steel balls satisfying the diameter-variation condition in Chapter 84 Note 6 fall under Heading 84.82 and remain outside the claimed cycle-parts exemptions, which must be construed strictly. Accordingly, balls measuring 3/16 inch, 5/32 inch and 1/8 inch were classified under Heading 84.82 without exemption eligibility. Note 6 requires conformity with both maximum and minimum diameter conditions; 1/4 inch balls that fail that requirement move to Heading 73.08. Where used for cycles or cycle rickshaws, such balls qualify for the relevant exemption. The classification dispute therefore succeeds for the 1/4 inch balls but not for the smaller sizes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2011 17:37:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121256" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (2) TMI 204 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84112</link>
      <description>Polished steel balls satisfying the diameter-variation condition in Chapter 84 Note 6 fall under Heading 84.82 and remain outside the claimed cycle-parts exemptions, which must be construed strictly. Accordingly, balls measuring 3/16 inch, 5/32 inch and 1/8 inch were classified under Heading 84.82 without exemption eligibility. Note 6 requires conformity with both maximum and minimum diameter conditions; 1/4 inch balls that fail that requirement move to Heading 73.08. Where used for cycles or cycle rickshaws, such balls qualify for the relevant exemption. The classification dispute therefore succeeds for the 1/4 inch balls but not for the smaller sizes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84112</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>