<?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>1998 (7) TMI 271 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89808</link>
    <description>Installing digital clocks into pen-stands, pen-cups and diaries was treated as more than simple assembly because the finished composite goods acquired a distinct commercial identity from their individual components. For tariff purposes, Heading 8472.00 was held inapplicable since Rule 3(b) of the Central Excise Tariff Rules requires composite goods to be classified by the component giving them their essential character. On that approach, the clock did not determine the identity of the finished article, so classification had to be redetermined with reference to the dominant non-clock component. The finding of manufacture was sustained, while the specific classification under Heading 8472.00 was rejected and remanded for fresh classification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:53:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=126870" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (7) TMI 271 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89808</link>
      <description>Installing digital clocks into pen-stands, pen-cups and diaries was treated as more than simple assembly because the finished composite goods acquired a distinct commercial identity from their individual components. For tariff purposes, Heading 8472.00 was held inapplicable since Rule 3(b) of the Central Excise Tariff Rules requires composite goods to be classified by the component giving them their essential character. On that approach, the clock did not determine the identity of the finished article, so classification had to be redetermined with reference to the dominant non-clock component. The finding of manufacture was sustained, while the specific classification under Heading 8472.00 was rejected and remanded for fresh classification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89808</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>