<?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 (6) TMI 428 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95660</link>
    <description>Classification of refrigerator tops depended on their nature and use, not merely their placement on an appliance. The items were prelaminated particle boards or laminated plywood boards usable as table tops or tops of equipment generally, and were not identifiable parts of a refrigerator. Chapter notes and HSN explanatory material did not support the Revenue because exclusion from furniture classification applies only where the item is designed to receive the refrigeration or evaporation unit or otherwise forms part of the refrigeration equipment. Classification under Heading 94.03 was therefore upheld and the Revenue&#039;s claim under Heading 84.18 failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2011 11:16:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132719" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (6) TMI 428 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95660</link>
      <description>Classification of refrigerator tops depended on their nature and use, not merely their placement on an appliance. The items were prelaminated particle boards or laminated plywood boards usable as table tops or tops of equipment generally, and were not identifiable parts of a refrigerator. Chapter notes and HSN explanatory material did not support the Revenue because exclusion from furniture classification applies only where the item is designed to receive the refrigeration or evaporation unit or otherwise forms part of the refrigeration equipment. Classification under Heading 94.03 was therefore upheld and the Revenue&#039;s claim under Heading 84.18 failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95660</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>