https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112701 An imported machine designed for both garment fusing and transfer printing was held classifiable as a multifunction machine rather than as a textile printing machine. Because the evidence showed that neither function was its principal purpose and it was equally efficacious for both uses, Chapter Note 5 of Chapter 84 required classification by reference to the residual heading. The correct classification was therefore Heading 84.59 as a machine having an individual function not elsewhere specified, and not Heading 84.40 as a machine used for printing on textiles. en-us Wed, 27 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 May 2012 13:32:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112701 An imported machine designed for both garment fusing and transfer printing was held classifiable as a multifunction machine rather than as a textile printing machine. Because the evidence showed that neither function was its principal purpose and it was equally efficacious for both uses, Chapter Note 5 of Chapter 84 required classification by reference to the residual heading. The correct classification was therefore Heading 84.59 as a machine having an individual function not elsewhere specified, and not Heading 84.40 as a machine used for printing on textiles. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 27 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112701