<?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>2004 (1) TMI 411 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110470</link>
    <description>HDPE pipes manufactured specifically for sprinkler irrigation systems were treated as parts of that system and classified under Heading 8424.91, not as general-use plastic pipes under Heading 3917.00. The classification turned on unrebutted facts that the pipes conformed to sprinkler irrigation specifications, were supplied only as components to State Governments, were never sold for general use, and had pressure characteristics distinct from ordinary market pipes. General-use pipe precedents were held inapplicable because they did not involve irrigation-system-specific components. The tariff note excluding goods of general use did not apply, and the departmental circular supported the assessee&#039;s classification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Jun 2024 11:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147486" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (1) TMI 411 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110470</link>
      <description>HDPE pipes manufactured specifically for sprinkler irrigation systems were treated as parts of that system and classified under Heading 8424.91, not as general-use plastic pipes under Heading 3917.00. The classification turned on unrebutted facts that the pipes conformed to sprinkler irrigation specifications, were supplied only as components to State Governments, were never sold for general use, and had pressure characteristics distinct from ordinary market pipes. General-use pipe precedents were held inapplicable because they did not involve irrigation-system-specific components. The tariff note excluding goods of general use did not apply, and the departmental circular supported the assessee&#039;s classification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110470</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>