<?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 (7) TMI 817 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102793</link>
    <description>A filter element cleared as a component of a filter assembly was held classifiable under Heading 8421.90 as parts, not under Heading 8421.10 as a complete filtering or purifying apparatus. The classification turned on the tariff scheme distinguishing complete apparatus from parts, with Section Note 2(a) of Section XVI and the interpretative rules applied to avoid making the parts heading redundant. Technical material showed that the item did not function independently, but only in conjunction with other assembly components for filtration. The majority therefore affirmed the lower authority&#039;s classification and duty demand, and the appeals were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 01 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:52:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=139839" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (7) TMI 817 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102793</link>
      <description>A filter element cleared as a component of a filter assembly was held classifiable under Heading 8421.90 as parts, not under Heading 8421.10 as a complete filtering or purifying apparatus. The classification turned on the tariff scheme distinguishing complete apparatus from parts, with Section Note 2(a) of Section XVI and the interpretative rules applied to avoid making the parts heading redundant. Technical material showed that the item did not function independently, but only in conjunction with other assembly components for filtration. The majority therefore affirmed the lower authority&#039;s classification and duty demand, and the appeals were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 01 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102793</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>