<?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>2000 (8) TMI 328 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93811</link>
    <description>Rough steel castings that required further machining remained classifiable under Chapter Heading 73.25 rather than as machine parts under Chapters 84 to 87, because the evidence showed only unfinished cast articles were manufactured. The approved classification list and the assessee&#039;s explanation supported Heading 73.25, while the buyer&#039;s correspondence and the senior manager&#039;s statement indicated the goods were not complete parts fit for use without additional processing. The Revenue also failed to prove suppression or misclassification sufficient to sustain the demand, so the classification and the assessee&#039;s declared position were accepted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2011 11:01:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130871" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (8) TMI 328 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93811</link>
      <description>Rough steel castings that required further machining remained classifiable under Chapter Heading 73.25 rather than as machine parts under Chapters 84 to 87, because the evidence showed only unfinished cast articles were manufactured. The approved classification list and the assessee&#039;s explanation supported Heading 73.25, while the buyer&#039;s correspondence and the senior manager&#039;s statement indicated the goods were not complete parts fit for use without additional processing. The Revenue also failed to prove suppression or misclassification sufficient to sustain the demand, so the classification and the assessee&#039;s declared position were accepted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93811</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>