<?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 (3) TMI 50 -  CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1488</link>
    <description>Moulded plastic components specially designed for wiring harnesses, magneto assemblies and car seat belts were held classifiable as motor vehicle parts under Chapter Heading 87.08. Section Note 1(k) to Section XVI excluded automobile parts from Chapters 84 and 85, so the broader headings suggested by Revenue could not displace the specific Section XVII classification. Because the goods were suitable for use solely or primarily with motor vehicles and had the requisite precision of design, they answered the test for Chapter 87.08. The classification adopted by the lower authorities was sustained and Revenue&#039;s reclassification claim failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40899" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (3) TMI 50 -  CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1488</link>
      <description>Moulded plastic components specially designed for wiring harnesses, magneto assemblies and car seat belts were held classifiable as motor vehicle parts under Chapter Heading 87.08. Section Note 1(k) to Section XVI excluded automobile parts from Chapters 84 and 85, so the broader headings suggested by Revenue could not displace the specific Section XVII classification. Because the goods were suitable for use solely or primarily with motor vehicles and had the requisite precision of design, they answered the test for Chapter 87.08. The classification adopted by the lower authorities was sustained and Revenue&#039;s reclassification claim failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1488</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>