<?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 (8) TMI 266 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89844</link>
    <description>Injector nozzles used in a diesel engine&#039;s fuel injection system were treated as parts of the internal combustion engine rather than parts of the fuel injection pump. The classification turned on the nozzle&#039;s essential function: it receives fuel already pressurised by the pump and injects it into the combustion chamber, and it is tightly affixed to the engine to prevent leakage and loss of compression. The pump&#039;s role was limited to delivering fuel at the calibrated pressure and rate. Ancillary use in pump calibration and manufacture by the same maker did not change the nozzle&#039;s essential character. Classification under Heading 8409 was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Sep 2011 11:00:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=126906" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (8) TMI 266 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89844</link>
      <description>Injector nozzles used in a diesel engine&#039;s fuel injection system were treated as parts of the internal combustion engine rather than parts of the fuel injection pump. The classification turned on the nozzle&#039;s essential function: it receives fuel already pressurised by the pump and injects it into the combustion chamber, and it is tightly affixed to the engine to prevent leakage and loss of compression. The pump&#039;s role was limited to delivering fuel at the calibrated pressure and rate. Ancillary use in pump calibration and manufacture by the same maker did not change the nozzle&#039;s essential character. Classification under Heading 8409 was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89844</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>