<?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>2007 (2) TMI 469 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121169</link>
    <description>Combination machinery intended to work together may be classified by the function performed under Note 4 of Section XVI and Note 7 of Chapter 84, with residuary Heading 8479 applying only where no specific heading covers that function. Here, the imported machines and components for crowns and caps were cleared through separate ex-bond Bills of Entry, were described and assessed piece-meal as individual machines, and the procedure under Public Notice No. 91/87 was not followed. On that record, the goods could not be treated as a complete plant, and the earlier assessment could not be reopened after such delay. The exemption under Notification No. 16/2000-Cus. was therefore not available.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2012 11:36:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=158163" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (2) TMI 469 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121169</link>
      <description>Combination machinery intended to work together may be classified by the function performed under Note 4 of Section XVI and Note 7 of Chapter 84, with residuary Heading 8479 applying only where no specific heading covers that function. Here, the imported machines and components for crowns and caps were cleared through separate ex-bond Bills of Entry, were described and assessed piece-meal as individual machines, and the procedure under Public Notice No. 91/87 was not followed. On that record, the goods could not be treated as a complete plant, and the earlier assessment could not be reopened after such delay. The exemption under Notification No. 16/2000-Cus. was therefore not available.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121169</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>