<?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>2005 (10) TMI 90 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47418</link>
    <description>A residuary tariff heading can be used only when no specific heading covers the goods, and classification must turn on the goods&#039; nature, function and the relevant statutory notes. Applying Note 2(b) of Section XVI and Note 7 to Chapter 84, a part suitable for a particular machine must be classified with that machine where no specific heading applies, and a machine performing more than one function is classified by its principal purpose. Because the Tribunal relied only on an HSN note on vibrator motors and did not consider the full scheme of Section XVI and Chapter 84 or the claim that the equipment was an integral part of pulp-making machinery, the residuary classification was not sustained and the matter was remitted for reconsideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Jun 2014 13:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=85937" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (10) TMI 90 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47418</link>
      <description>A residuary tariff heading can be used only when no specific heading covers the goods, and classification must turn on the goods&#039; nature, function and the relevant statutory notes. Applying Note 2(b) of Section XVI and Note 7 to Chapter 84, a part suitable for a particular machine must be classified with that machine where no specific heading applies, and a machine performing more than one function is classified by its principal purpose. Because the Tribunal relied only on an HSN note on vibrator motors and did not consider the full scheme of Section XVI and Chapter 84 or the claim that the equipment was an integral part of pulp-making machinery, the residuary classification was not sustained and the matter was remitted for reconsideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47418</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>