<?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 (12) TMI 139 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84762</link>
    <description>Foot step bearings were treated as bearings under Heading 84.63 because their essential function was to support and position rotating shafts, and their use in textile machinery did not alter that character; construction in one or more parts was immaterial. Roller retainers or metal cages were treated as parts of anti-friction bearings under Heading 84.62 because technical material showed cages are recognised components of ball or roller bearings, and the exemption under Notification No. 35/79-Cus. did not extend to that heading at the relevant time. The Department&#039;s classification was sustained and the exemption claim failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Jul 2011 15:26:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121829" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (12) TMI 139 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84762</link>
      <description>Foot step bearings were treated as bearings under Heading 84.63 because their essential function was to support and position rotating shafts, and their use in textile machinery did not alter that character; construction in one or more parts was immaterial. Roller retainers or metal cages were treated as parts of anti-friction bearings under Heading 84.62 because technical material showed cages are recognised components of ball or roller bearings, and the exemption under Notification No. 35/79-Cus. did not extend to that heading at the relevant time. The Department&#039;s classification was sustained and the exemption claim failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84762</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>