<?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 (4) TMI 169 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90938</link>
    <description>Goods specially designed for identifiable motor vehicle models, supported by catalogues, certificates, affidavits and commercial understanding, were treated as motor vehicle parts and accessories under Heading 8708.00. Section Note 2 of Section XVII excludes parts of general use, while Section Note 3 directs classification by principal use where the goods are suitable solely or principally for Chapters 86 to 88. The record showed functional utility beyond mere fastening and the earlier tariff decisions were distinguishable because the present tariff scheme differed materially. The Revenue&#039;s claim for classification under Heading 7318.10 therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:41:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=128000" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (4) TMI 169 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90938</link>
      <description>Goods specially designed for identifiable motor vehicle models, supported by catalogues, certificates, affidavits and commercial understanding, were treated as motor vehicle parts and accessories under Heading 8708.00. Section Note 2 of Section XVII excludes parts of general use, while Section Note 3 directs classification by principal use where the goods are suitable solely or principally for Chapters 86 to 88. The record showed functional utility beyond mere fastening and the earlier tariff decisions were distinguishable because the present tariff scheme differed materially. The Revenue&#039;s claim for classification under Heading 7318.10 therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90938</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>