<?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 (9) TMI 268 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85799</link>
    <description>Imported tool bits or accessories were treated as separately charged items, not goods compulsorily supplied with the main machine. On that basis, the condition for extending the main article&#039;s duty treatment to accessories was not met, and the claim to classification under Heading 84.45/48 failed. The contention that the goods were merely blanks or not tools in trade parlance was rejected on the facts, with the cited precedent held distinguishable because it concerned blanks requiring further processing before use. The assessment under Heading 82.05(1) was therefore sustained, and the accessories condition benefit was denied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Aug 2011 12:25:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122866" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (9) TMI 268 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85799</link>
      <description>Imported tool bits or accessories were treated as separately charged items, not goods compulsorily supplied with the main machine. On that basis, the condition for extending the main article&#039;s duty treatment to accessories was not met, and the claim to classification under Heading 84.45/48 failed. The contention that the goods were merely blanks or not tools in trade parlance was rejected on the facts, with the cited precedent held distinguishable because it concerned blanks requiring further processing before use. The assessment under Heading 82.05(1) was therefore sustained, and the accessories condition benefit was denied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85799</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>