<?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 (11) TMI 134 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51556</link>
    <description>Multifunction printer-scanner-copier machines were held not classifiable under sub-heading 8471.60 because heading 84.71 applies only to units of a kind solely or principally used in an automatic data processing system. The catalogues and specifications showed independent multifunction capability, and the devices were not merely printers attached to computers. Earlier decisions were distinguished on the basis that different models and established principal use in an ADP system were involved. The machines were therefore classifiable under the residual heading for individual functions, and the classification adopted in the impugned order was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Sep 2010 13:44:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90034" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (11) TMI 134 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51556</link>
      <description>Multifunction printer-scanner-copier machines were held not classifiable under sub-heading 8471.60 because heading 84.71 applies only to units of a kind solely or principally used in an automatic data processing system. The catalogues and specifications showed independent multifunction capability, and the devices were not merely printers attached to computers. Earlier decisions were distinguished on the basis that different models and established principal use in an ADP system were involved. The machines were therefore classifiable under the residual heading for individual functions, and the classification adopted in the impugned order was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51556</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>