<?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>1998 (7) TMI 447 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94763</link>
    <description>Tariff classification of the tyres depended on their actual or predominant use, and the existing record was insufficient to finally decide whether they were bicycle and cycle-rickshaw tyres or tyres used on two-wheeled motor vehicles. Differences in price, weight, dealer statements and sales pattern did not conclusively establish classification, especially where cross-examination was denied and no technical tests were carried out. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on classification across the relevant clearances. The penalty was set aside because the alleged trade confusion and incomplete evidence did not establish mala fides, and its fate was left to the fresh determination of classification and consequential liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Dec 2011 16:28:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131822" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (7) TMI 447 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94763</link>
      <description>Tariff classification of the tyres depended on their actual or predominant use, and the existing record was insufficient to finally decide whether they were bicycle and cycle-rickshaw tyres or tyres used on two-wheeled motor vehicles. Differences in price, weight, dealer statements and sales pattern did not conclusively establish classification, especially where cross-examination was denied and no technical tests were carried out. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on classification across the relevant clearances. The penalty was set aside because the alleged trade confusion and incomplete evidence did not establish mala fides, and its fate was left to the fresh determination of classification and consequential liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94763</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>