<?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>2006 (9) TMI 35 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1027</link>
    <description>Wrist watches with cases wholly of precious metal, precious metal bracelets and gem setting were classifiable under heading 9101 because the tariff heading and Chapter Notes specifically covered watches of precious metal. Note 2 to Chapter 91 expressly included watches set with pearls or precious stones and fitted with precious metal bracelets, while Note 1(k) to Chapter 71 excluded articles falling under Chapter 91. The claim that their ornamental character made them jewellery was rejected, and Rule 3(b) was held inapplicable because classification was determined under Rule 1 by the specific heading and notes. The goods therefore fell under heading 9101, not heading 7101.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 05:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40449" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (9) TMI 35 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1027</link>
      <description>Wrist watches with cases wholly of precious metal, precious metal bracelets and gem setting were classifiable under heading 9101 because the tariff heading and Chapter Notes specifically covered watches of precious metal. Note 2 to Chapter 91 expressly included watches set with pearls or precious stones and fitted with precious metal bracelets, while Note 1(k) to Chapter 71 excluded articles falling under Chapter 91. The claim that their ornamental character made them jewellery was rejected, and Rule 3(b) was held inapplicable because classification was determined under Rule 1 by the specific heading and notes. The goods therefore fell under heading 9101, not heading 7101.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1027</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>