<?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 469 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118888</link>
    <description>Flanges and nuts made to specific drawings for use with a particular machine component were held not to be parts of general use. On unchallenged facts, they were specifically designed for that machine and suitable solely or primarily for that use, so the tariff notes relied on by Revenue did not alter the classification. The goods were therefore not classifiable under Heading 73.18, and the assessee&#039;s classification under Heading 8412.90 was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Jul 2012 14:49:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=155885" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (10) TMI 469 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118888</link>
      <description>Flanges and nuts made to specific drawings for use with a particular machine component were held not to be parts of general use. On unchallenged facts, they were specifically designed for that machine and suitable solely or primarily for that use, so the tariff notes relied on by Revenue did not alter the classification. The goods were therefore not classifiable under Heading 73.18, and the assessee&#039;s classification under Heading 8412.90 was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118888</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>