<?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 (10) TMI 241 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86027</link>
    <description>Goods specifically described in Heading 84.83 were to be classified there, while items not exactly answering that description could fall under Heading 84.66 as parts and accessories suitable for the machines concerned. Bearings, housings, pulleys, couplings and claw clutches were treated as falling within Heading 84.83, but shafts and pinions were classified under Heading 84.66. The limitation question was governed by Section 11A as it stood during the relevant period, so the date of the order-in-appeal had no bearing on computation of the six-month demand period. The classification was modified only for shafts and pinions, and the limitation objection was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Aug 2011 17:04:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123094" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (10) TMI 241 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86027</link>
      <description>Goods specifically described in Heading 84.83 were to be classified there, while items not exactly answering that description could fall under Heading 84.66 as parts and accessories suitable for the machines concerned. Bearings, housings, pulleys, couplings and claw clutches were treated as falling within Heading 84.83, but shafts and pinions were classified under Heading 84.66. The limitation question was governed by Section 11A as it stood during the relevant period, so the date of the order-in-appeal had no bearing on computation of the six-month demand period. The classification was modified only for shafts and pinions, and the limitation objection was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86027</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>