<?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 (1) TMI 287 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87132</link>
    <description>Tariff classification of a wiper motor with tubular link required a proper examination of the product&#039;s characteristics, intended use, and the effect of Chapter Note 2 to Chapter 85 before choosing between Tariff Item 85.01 and Tariff Item 85.12. The record was inadequate because the catalogue and other material on the goods&#039; features and mode of use were not available, and the lower authority had not tested whether the attachment shifted the goods out of the heading for electric motors. The classification could not be finally sustained on the existing material, so the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication after hearing both sides.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 10:39:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124199" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (1) TMI 287 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87132</link>
      <description>Tariff classification of a wiper motor with tubular link required a proper examination of the product&#039;s characteristics, intended use, and the effect of Chapter Note 2 to Chapter 85 before choosing between Tariff Item 85.01 and Tariff Item 85.12. The record was inadequate because the catalogue and other material on the goods&#039; features and mode of use were not available, and the lower authority had not tested whether the attachment shifted the goods out of the heading for electric motors. The classification could not be finally sustained on the existing material, so the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication after hearing both sides.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87132</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>