<?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 (9) TMI 180 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84840</link>
    <description>Forged products described as unmachined forgings retained their identity as forgings because they required further processes, including machining and polishing, before becoming usable motor vehicle parts. Rule 2(a) applied only where incomplete or unfinished goods had already acquired the essential character of the finished article, which was not shown on the record. The goods therefore could not be classified under Heading 87.08 as motor vehicle parts and remained classifiable as forgings or forged articles under the relevant tariff headings in Chapters 72 or 73. The departmental classification based on Heading 87.08 was not sustained, and the classification dispute was resolved in favour of the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Aug 2011 10:55:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121907" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (9) TMI 180 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84840</link>
      <description>Forged products described as unmachined forgings retained their identity as forgings because they required further processes, including machining and polishing, before becoming usable motor vehicle parts. Rule 2(a) applied only where incomplete or unfinished goods had already acquired the essential character of the finished article, which was not shown on the record. The goods therefore could not be classified under Heading 87.08 as motor vehicle parts and remained classifiable as forgings or forged articles under the relevant tariff headings in Chapters 72 or 73. The departmental classification based on Heading 87.08 was not sustained, and the classification dispute was resolved in favour of the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84840</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>