<?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 (9) TMI 251 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87560</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi upheld the separate classification of equipment and accessories for a CNC Turning Machine Model RNC 1000-E for Customs duty purposes. Despite the appellants&#039; argument that the accessories should be classified along with the machine, the Tribunal found that if parts and accessories are separately classifiable under specific headings in the Customs Tariff, they should be classified accordingly. The decision was based on evidence showing separate values for the base machine and accessories, as well as documentation indicating that certain equipment was supplied separately. The appeal was rejected, affirming the classification of equipment and accessories separately from the base machine for Customs duty purposes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2011 18:12:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124626" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (9) TMI 251 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87560</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi upheld the separate classification of equipment and accessories for a CNC Turning Machine Model RNC 1000-E for Customs duty purposes. Despite the appellants&#039; argument that the accessories should be classified along with the machine, the Tribunal found that if parts and accessories are separately classifiable under specific headings in the Customs Tariff, they should be classified accordingly. The decision was based on evidence showing separate values for the base machine and accessories, as well as documentation indicating that certain equipment was supplied separately. The appeal was rejected, affirming the classification of equipment and accessories separately from the base machine for Customs duty purposes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87560</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>