<?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>1999 (3) TMI 162 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90302</link>
    <description>Goods described as various couplings were treated as classifiable under Tariff Heading 84.83 as shaft couplings rather than under Tariff Heading 84.85 as parts of machinery. Because the tariff heading was aligned with the HSN, the HSN Explanatory Notes were given high persuasive value in determining the scope of shaft couplings. On that basis, the couplings were held to fall within Heading 84.83, and the residuary classification was not accepted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2011 18:54:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127364" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (3) TMI 162 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90302</link>
      <description>Goods described as various couplings were treated as classifiable under Tariff Heading 84.83 as shaft couplings rather than under Tariff Heading 84.85 as parts of machinery. Because the tariff heading was aligned with the HSN, the HSN Explanatory Notes were given high persuasive value in determining the scope of shaft couplings. On that basis, the couplings were held to fall within Heading 84.83, and the residuary classification was not accepted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90302</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>