<?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>2002 (2) TMI 174 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51139</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, classifying the car alarm and locking system as a car lock under Customs Tariff Heading 8301.20. The decision was based on the determination that the locking system was the main component in the combination product, emphasizing its importance for the security of movable property like cars. The appeal was allowed, providing consequential relief to the appellants in line with the classification under Heading 8301.20.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Sep 2010 10:06:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89618" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (2) TMI 174 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51139</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, classifying the car alarm and locking system as a car lock under Customs Tariff Heading 8301.20. The decision was based on the determination that the locking system was the main component in the combination product, emphasizing its importance for the security of movable property like cars. The appeal was allowed, providing consequential relief to the appellants in line with the classification under Heading 8301.20.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51139</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>