<?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 (7) TMI 511 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95676</link>
    <description>Goods specifically covered by a tariff heading must be classified in that heading in accordance with the tariff text and section notes; they cannot be reclassified as parts of refrigerating or air-conditioning machinery merely because of possible end use. The assessee&#039;s valves and related items were treated as ordinary industrial goods with multiple uses, and the department failed to disprove that position. On that basis, the reclassification was not sustainable, and the alleged misdeclaration or suppression also fell away. The duty demand, extended limitation, penalty and interest were therefore not maintainable once the classification dispute was resolved in the assessee&#039;s favour.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:07:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132735" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (7) TMI 511 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95676</link>
      <description>Goods specifically covered by a tariff heading must be classified in that heading in accordance with the tariff text and section notes; they cannot be reclassified as parts of refrigerating or air-conditioning machinery merely because of possible end use. The assessee&#039;s valves and related items were treated as ordinary industrial goods with multiple uses, and the department failed to disprove that position. On that basis, the reclassification was not sustainable, and the alleged misdeclaration or suppression also fell away. The duty demand, extended limitation, penalty and interest were therefore not maintainable once the classification dispute was resolved in the assessee&#039;s favour.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95676</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>