https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335786 CESTAT Mumbai held that timing belts imported for use in a draw texturising machine qualified for exemption under Notification No. 21/2002 because they were established to be parts of the notified machine. The benefit could not be denied merely because the goods were classifiable under a different tariff heading, since the decisive test was whether the item was a part of the covered machinery. A certificate from the jurisdictional excise authority supported that the timing belt was a machine part. The contrary classification-based denial was unsustainable, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. en-us Tue, 15 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Aug 2017 15:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335786 CESTAT Mumbai held that timing belts imported for use in a draw texturising machine qualified for exemption under Notification No. 21/2002 because they were established to be parts of the notified machine. The benefit could not be denied merely because the goods were classifiable under a different tariff heading, since the decisive test was whether the item was a part of the covered machinery. A certificate from the jurisdictional excise authority supported that the timing belt was a machine part. The contrary classification-based denial was unsustainable, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 15 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335786