<?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 (10) TMI 498 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95765</link>
    <description>A water dispenser performing multiple functions, including dispensing water and providing hot or cold water at the user&#039;s option, was treated as a machine with no single dominant function. Because it did not fit squarely within any specific heading in Chapter 84, it was classified under the residuary entry for machines having individual functions not specified elsewhere. The Department&#039;s attempt to rely on a different classification under Tariff heading 8543.90 was rejected as a new case that could not be introduced at the appellate stage when it had not been the basis of the show-cause notices. The classification under sub-heading 8479.10 was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2011 17:44:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132824" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (10) TMI 498 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95765</link>
      <description>A water dispenser performing multiple functions, including dispensing water and providing hot or cold water at the user&#039;s option, was treated as a machine with no single dominant function. Because it did not fit squarely within any specific heading in Chapter 84, it was classified under the residuary entry for machines having individual functions not specified elsewhere. The Department&#039;s attempt to rely on a different classification under Tariff heading 8543.90 was rejected as a new case that could not be introduced at the appellate stage when it had not been the basis of the show-cause notices. The classification under sub-heading 8479.10 was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95765</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>