<?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>2000 (8) TMI 320 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93804</link>
    <description>A base frame used only as support for a gear box and motor fitted to a tube rolling mill was not classifiable under Heading 85.03 because the motors and related equipment were complete without it, so it was not a part suitable solely or principally for machines of Heading 85.01 or 85.02. On the facts, the goods fell within Heading 84.55, which covers metal rolling mills and rolls thereof, and this was held to be the correct classification; the Revenue&#039;s appeal was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2011 10:33:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130864" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (8) TMI 320 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93804</link>
      <description>A base frame used only as support for a gear box and motor fitted to a tube rolling mill was not classifiable under Heading 85.03 because the motors and related equipment were complete without it, so it was not a part suitable solely or principally for machines of Heading 85.01 or 85.02. On the facts, the goods fell within Heading 84.55, which covers metal rolling mills and rolls thereof, and this was held to be the correct classification; the Revenue&#039;s appeal was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93804</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>