<?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>1997 (5) TMI 202 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86993</link>
    <description>Parts and components suitable for use solely or principally with machinery of Heading Nos. 84.25 to 84.30 were held classifiable under Heading No. 84.31, because that heading specifically covers such parts. The Tribunal distinguished Section Note 4 of Section XVI, which applies to complete machines made up of components, from Section Note 2, which governed classification of parts. On that basis, parts specifically described by Heading No. 84.31 could not be shifted to the headings applicable to the machinery itself. The lower authority&#039;s classification was found consistent with the tariff description and section notes, and the refund-related challenge failed on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Aug 2011 17:43:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124060" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (5) TMI 202 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86993</link>
      <description>Parts and components suitable for use solely or principally with machinery of Heading Nos. 84.25 to 84.30 were held classifiable under Heading No. 84.31, because that heading specifically covers such parts. The Tribunal distinguished Section Note 4 of Section XVI, which applies to complete machines made up of components, from Section Note 2, which governed classification of parts. On that basis, parts specifically described by Heading No. 84.31 could not be shifted to the headings applicable to the machinery itself. The lower authority&#039;s classification was found consistent with the tariff description and section notes, and the refund-related challenge failed on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86993</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>