<?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>1996 (7) TMI 279 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85532</link>
    <description>Classification of short-shipped parts and accessories of a calorimeter depended on whether they were integral to the main article or separately classifiable under the relevant section notes, chapter notes and headings. Because the calorimeter was already accepted under Heading 90.25, a later shipment of missing parts could not be shifted to a different heading without technical material and clear reasons. In the absence of catalogue evidence and satisfactory justification for the new classification, the impugned classification could not stand and the matter was remitted for fresh determination; the refund rejection was set aside to that extent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Aug 2011 16:43:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122599" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (7) TMI 279 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85532</link>
      <description>Classification of short-shipped parts and accessories of a calorimeter depended on whether they were integral to the main article or separately classifiable under the relevant section notes, chapter notes and headings. Because the calorimeter was already accepted under Heading 90.25, a later shipment of missing parts could not be shifted to a different heading without technical material and clear reasons. In the absence of catalogue evidence and satisfactory justification for the new classification, the impugned classification could not stand and the matter was remitted for fresh determination; the refund rejection was set aside to that extent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85532</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>