<?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 (10) TMI 252 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94129</link>
    <description>Recovered monomer tanks and monomer mix tanks were examined for classification under Heading 7309.00 or Heading 7311.00 of the Central Excise Tariff. Heading 73.09 covers pressure vessels, tanks and similar iron or steel containers, while Heading 73.11 applies only to containers for compressed or liquefied gas; the record did not show that the goods met that description. A reference in the purchase order to tests for compliance with pressure-vessel specifications was insufficient to support reclassification under Heading 7311.00, and the material relied upon for invoking the extended period was unsupported by evidence. The duty demand based on reclassification was therefore not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Nov 2011 12:40:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131189" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (10) TMI 252 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94129</link>
      <description>Recovered monomer tanks and monomer mix tanks were examined for classification under Heading 7309.00 or Heading 7311.00 of the Central Excise Tariff. Heading 73.09 covers pressure vessels, tanks and similar iron or steel containers, while Heading 73.11 applies only to containers for compressed or liquefied gas; the record did not show that the goods met that description. A reference in the purchase order to tests for compliance with pressure-vessel specifications was insufficient to support reclassification under Heading 7311.00, and the material relied upon for invoking the extended period was unsupported by evidence. The duty demand based on reclassification was therefore not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94129</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>