<?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>2005 (10) TMI 356 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116807</link>
    <description>Toner cartridges imported for use in computer printers were treated as parts of machines of heading 8471, not mere accessories, because the printer could not function without them and the cartridge was integrally connected with the printing mechanism. On that functional and tariff-based analysis, the part-accessory distinction did not justify denial of the exemption, and the goods were eligible for nil duty under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., as amended.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Jun 2012 18:01:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153805" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (10) TMI 356 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116807</link>
      <description>Toner cartridges imported for use in computer printers were treated as parts of machines of heading 8471, not mere accessories, because the printer could not function without them and the cartridge was integrally connected with the printing mechanism. On that functional and tariff-based analysis, the part-accessory distinction did not justify denial of the exemption, and the goods were eligible for nil duty under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., as amended.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116807</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>