<?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 (2) TMI 1077 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104744</link>
    <description>Internal combustion engines specially designed for power sprayers were classified as parts of mechanical appliances used in agriculture or horticulture under Chapter sub-heading 8424.91, not as internal combustion piston engines under Chapter sub-heading 8407.00. Applying the General Rules for Interpretation and the Section XVI notes, the classification turned on their specific design and end-use: they lacked a cooling blower, fuel tank and governing mechanism, were not shown to be marketable for other uses without modification, and expert opinion supported exclusive suitability for power sprayer application. The tariff heading for the machine to which the parts were dedicated therefore prevailed over the general engine heading.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2012 11:41:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141783" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (2) TMI 1077 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104744</link>
      <description>Internal combustion engines specially designed for power sprayers were classified as parts of mechanical appliances used in agriculture or horticulture under Chapter sub-heading 8424.91, not as internal combustion piston engines under Chapter sub-heading 8407.00. Applying the General Rules for Interpretation and the Section XVI notes, the classification turned on their specific design and end-use: they lacked a cooling blower, fuel tank and governing mechanism, were not shown to be marketable for other uses without modification, and expert opinion supported exclusive suitability for power sprayer application. The tariff heading for the machine to which the parts were dedicated therefore prevailed over the general engine heading.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104744</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>