<?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>2002 (5) TMI 424 - CEGAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102441</link>
    <description>Coal tub bodies used to transport coal from mines fall under Heading 8609 as containers specially designed and equipped for carriage, not under Heading 8607 as parts of railway or tramway rolling stock. Chapter 86 and the HSN General Notes support inclusion of open containers for bulk coal transport within Heading 8609, and the tubs considered were certified as having a capacity slightly above one metric tonne. The specific tariff description for transport containers prevails over the more general heading for rolling stock parts, so the classification under Heading 8607 was rejected and the duty demand based on that classification could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:24:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=139490" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (5) TMI 424 - CEGAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102441</link>
      <description>Coal tub bodies used to transport coal from mines fall under Heading 8609 as containers specially designed and equipped for carriage, not under Heading 8607 as parts of railway or tramway rolling stock. Chapter 86 and the HSN General Notes support inclusion of open containers for bulk coal transport within Heading 8609, and the tubs considered were certified as having a capacity slightly above one metric tonne. The specific tariff description for transport containers prevails over the more general heading for rolling stock parts, so the classification under Heading 8607 was rejected and the duty demand based on that classification could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102441</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>