<?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>2001 (4) TMI 151 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50635</link>
    <description>An imported centrifugal chiller with an independent refrigerating function was treated as refrigerating equipment rather than air-conditioning machinery for tariff classification purposes. The Tribunal applied the principle that the principal character of the goods governs classification and found the item closer to Heading 84.18 than Heading 84.15 of the Customs Tariff Act. It also followed an earlier decision on an identical item, together with a similar ruling on a refrigeration beverage fountain, as a matter of judicial discipline and found no distinguishing features to justify departure. The Revenue&#039;s classification was therefore not sustained, and classification was accepted in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2010 10:55:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89114" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (4) TMI 151 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50635</link>
      <description>An imported centrifugal chiller with an independent refrigerating function was treated as refrigerating equipment rather than air-conditioning machinery for tariff classification purposes. The Tribunal applied the principle that the principal character of the goods governs classification and found the item closer to Heading 84.18 than Heading 84.15 of the Customs Tariff Act. It also followed an earlier decision on an identical item, together with a similar ruling on a refrigeration beverage fountain, as a matter of judicial discipline and found no distinguishing features to justify departure. The Revenue&#039;s classification was therefore not sustained, and classification was accepted in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50635</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>