<?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>1997 (2) TMI 125 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44533</link>
    <description>Rice rubber rolls used in rice milling machinery were held to fall under Tariff Item 40.16 as other articles of vulcanised rubber, not under Tariff Item 40.09 for tubes, pipes and hoses. Their construction as rubber sheets wrapped on steel shells, cured and cut to length showed they were designed for machinery use rather than for conveying air, gas or liquid. The classification was supported by the relevant section note excluding articles used in machinery from Section XVI, a collectors&#039; conference circular, and the HSN explanatory note for Heading 40.16. The Tribunal&#039;s classification was therefore consistent with the tariff scheme.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 Jun 2010 18:05:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=83062" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (2) TMI 125 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44533</link>
      <description>Rice rubber rolls used in rice milling machinery were held to fall under Tariff Item 40.16 as other articles of vulcanised rubber, not under Tariff Item 40.09 for tubes, pipes and hoses. Their construction as rubber sheets wrapped on steel shells, cured and cut to length showed they were designed for machinery use rather than for conveying air, gas or liquid. The classification was supported by the relevant section note excluding articles used in machinery from Section XVI, a collectors&#039; conference circular, and the HSN explanatory note for Heading 40.16. The Tribunal&#039;s classification was therefore consistent with the tariff scheme.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44533</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>