<?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 243 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86029</link>
    <description>For tariff classification under Heading 84.59(2), a machine must itself be designed to produce a ready-to-use commodity in the limited sense intended by the heading. The printing and tubing machine was treated as a separate machine because the manufacturer&#039;s literature and invoice described it separately, it had independent functions and controls, and it had no common base or common control with the auto sewing line. As it produced only tubing, an intermediate product rather than a finished commodity, it fell under the residuary Heading 84.59(1). The auto sewing line remained classifiable under Heading 84.59(2), and the appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Aug 2011 17:17:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123096" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (10) TMI 243 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86029</link>
      <description>For tariff classification under Heading 84.59(2), a machine must itself be designed to produce a ready-to-use commodity in the limited sense intended by the heading. The printing and tubing machine was treated as a separate machine because the manufacturer&#039;s literature and invoice described it separately, it had independent functions and controls, and it had no common base or common control with the auto sewing line. As it produced only tubing, an intermediate product rather than a finished commodity, it fell under the residuary Heading 84.59(1). The auto sewing line remained classifiable under Heading 84.59(2), and the appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86029</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>