<?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>2001 (3) TMI 803 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103502</link>
    <description>Classification of assembled X-ray film processors turned on whether they were independent machines under heading 9010 or accessories of X-ray equipment under heading 9022. The record showed conflicting findings on the product&#039;s basic character, and the authorities had not properly applied Chapter Note 2 to Chapter 90 before relying on HSN guidance. The classification and exemption findings were therefore set aside and remanded for fresh determination on the true nature of the goods. The adjudication was also held vitiated by breach of natural justice because requests for consideration of technical material and cross-examination of the relied-on expert were not effectively addressed, requiring de novo consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2012 13:13:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=140541" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (3) TMI 803 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103502</link>
      <description>Classification of assembled X-ray film processors turned on whether they were independent machines under heading 9010 or accessories of X-ray equipment under heading 9022. The record showed conflicting findings on the product&#039;s basic character, and the authorities had not properly applied Chapter Note 2 to Chapter 90 before relying on HSN guidance. The classification and exemption findings were therefore set aside and remanded for fresh determination on the true nature of the goods. The adjudication was also held vitiated by breach of natural justice because requests for consideration of technical material and cross-examination of the relied-on expert were not effectively addressed, requiring de novo consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103502</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>