<?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>1999 (8) TMI 637 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98075</link>
    <description>Classification of slotted angles, steel panels, partition plates, punch strips, floor gratings, corner plates and side sheets had to be determined by the form in which they were cleared from the factory, not merely by their eventual assembly or use at the customer&#039;s premises. The prior view treating them as furniture under Chapter 94 was set aside because the actual mode of removal, tariff notes and HSN explanatory notes distinguishing furniture from storage equipment were not properly examined. The plea on limitation and absence of suppression was also left open, as the alleged maintenance of registers, filing of declarations and bona fide belief had not been considered. The matter was remanded for de novo decision on classification and limitation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:17:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=135132" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (8) TMI 637 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98075</link>
      <description>Classification of slotted angles, steel panels, partition plates, punch strips, floor gratings, corner plates and side sheets had to be determined by the form in which they were cleared from the factory, not merely by their eventual assembly or use at the customer&#039;s premises. The prior view treating them as furniture under Chapter 94 was set aside because the actual mode of removal, tariff notes and HSN explanatory notes distinguishing furniture from storage equipment were not properly examined. The plea on limitation and absence of suppression was also left open, as the alleged maintenance of registers, filing of declarations and bona fide belief had not been considered. The matter was remanded for de novo decision on classification and limitation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98075</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>