<?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 (3) TMI 226 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84136</link>
    <description>Diamond-impregnated saw blades fall under the specific customs tariff entry for saws and blades, including toothless saw blades, rather than the broader entry for machine-tool parts. The specific tariff description prevails over the general machinery-part classification, resulting in customs classification under Heading 82.01/04. For countervailing duty, gang saw blades fall under the specific central excise tariff entry in Item 51A(iv), not the residual Heading 68, because an earlier ruling on similar goods supported that classification. Revenue&#039;s customs classification position was accepted, and the competing Heading 68 classification was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2011 18:42:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121280" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (3) TMI 226 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84136</link>
      <description>Diamond-impregnated saw blades fall under the specific customs tariff entry for saws and blades, including toothless saw blades, rather than the broader entry for machine-tool parts. The specific tariff description prevails over the general machinery-part classification, resulting in customs classification under Heading 82.01/04. For countervailing duty, gang saw blades fall under the specific central excise tariff entry in Item 51A(iv), not the residual Heading 68, because an earlier ruling on similar goods supported that classification. Revenue&#039;s customs classification position was accepted, and the competing Heading 68 classification was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84136</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>