<?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 (9) TMI 203 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92263</link>
    <description>Nozzles used to spray slurry on drilling bits were held to be mechanical appliances for projecting or spraying liquids, not interchangeable tools for drilling machinery. The goods were attached to drilling equipment only as part of a jet-projecting arrangement and did not themselves participate in drilling. Because their function was to project a stream and facilitate operation of the bit, classification under Heading 84.24 was upheld and the claim for Heading 8207 was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2011 14:00:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=129324" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (9) TMI 203 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92263</link>
      <description>Nozzles used to spray slurry on drilling bits were held to be mechanical appliances for projecting or spraying liquids, not interchangeable tools for drilling machinery. The goods were attached to drilling equipment only as part of a jet-projecting arrangement and did not themselves participate in drilling. Because their function was to project a stream and facilitate operation of the bit, classification under Heading 84.24 was upheld and the claim for Heading 8207 was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92263</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>