<?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>2004 (7) TMI 390 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112032</link>
    <description>A bearing assembly was treated as distinct from a bearing for classification under Chapter Heading 84.82 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, while bearing housings and similar assemblies fall under Chapter Heading 84.83. The exemption under Notification No. 6/2000, being directed to bearings, was held inapplicable to bearing assemblies and had to be construed strictly. The text also states that a rectification application can be used only to correct a patent mistake apparent from the record and cannot be employed to reopen a concluded classification view. Revenue reliance on other decisions was found unpersuasive on these facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:17:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=149048" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (7) TMI 390 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112032</link>
      <description>A bearing assembly was treated as distinct from a bearing for classification under Chapter Heading 84.82 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, while bearing housings and similar assemblies fall under Chapter Heading 84.83. The exemption under Notification No. 6/2000, being directed to bearings, was held inapplicable to bearing assemblies and had to be construed strictly. The text also states that a rectification application can be used only to correct a patent mistake apparent from the record and cannot be employed to reopen a concluded classification view. Revenue reliance on other decisions was found unpersuasive on these facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112032</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>