<?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 (7) TMI 422 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96486</link>
    <description>LDPE/HDPE pipes manufactured to specific orders and ISI specifications for drip irrigation were treated as components intended to operate only with the irrigation system, so they were classifiable as parts of a drip irrigation system under Heading 84.24 rather than as pipes of general use under Heading 39.17. The analysis applied Section XV and Section XVI notes, together with HSN explanatory notes, to conclude that goods suitable solely or principally for a functional unit are classified with that unit. The distinction from cases involving ordinary plastic pipes was based on differing facts. On that basis, the goods were held eligible for the exemption.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Jan 2012 16:21:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133544" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (7) TMI 422 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96486</link>
      <description>LDPE/HDPE pipes manufactured to specific orders and ISI specifications for drip irrigation were treated as components intended to operate only with the irrigation system, so they were classifiable as parts of a drip irrigation system under Heading 84.24 rather than as pipes of general use under Heading 39.17. The analysis applied Section XV and Section XVI notes, together with HSN explanatory notes, to conclude that goods suitable solely or principally for a functional unit are classified with that unit. The distinction from cases involving ordinary plastic pipes was based on differing facts. On that basis, the goods were held eligible for the exemption.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96486</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>