<?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>1994 (5) TMI 104 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83314</link>
    <description>Interconnected machinery used in a soda ash manufacturing process required tariff scrutiny under the applicable section notes and heading scheme, and the plant-level classification could not automatically displace a machine-specific heading merely because the equipment served the plant&#039;s principal function. The classification was therefore remanded for fresh adjudication. The valuation dispute over inclusion of engineering and technical charges also required reconsideration because the nexus of those charges with the imported goods had not been properly examined; the valuation issue was remanded. Penalty was not sustainable absent material showing misdeclaration or mala fide intent, and the penalty was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 May 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Jul 2011 16:26:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120459" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (5) TMI 104 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83314</link>
      <description>Interconnected machinery used in a soda ash manufacturing process required tariff scrutiny under the applicable section notes and heading scheme, and the plant-level classification could not automatically displace a machine-specific heading merely because the equipment served the plant&#039;s principal function. The classification was therefore remanded for fresh adjudication. The valuation dispute over inclusion of engineering and technical charges also required reconsideration because the nexus of those charges with the imported goods had not been properly examined; the valuation issue was remanded. Penalty was not sustainable absent material showing misdeclaration or mala fide intent, and the penalty was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 May 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83314</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>