<?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 (5) TMI 428 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112295</link>
    <description>A specially adapted battery assembly built from batteries, cells, racks and connecting accessories for use in a UPS is classifiable as a component part of the UPS under Heading 8504, not as a separate battery under Heading 8507.00, because a part essential to the working of the machine falls with the machine under Section Note 2(b) of Section XVI. The duty demand could not be finally sustained on the existing record because the show cause notice proceeded on batteries, while the dispute concerned battery assemblies; the actual nature of the goods cleared required factual verification. The classification adopted by the Assistant Collector was upheld, the contrary appellate order was set aside, and the demand issue was remanded for fresh determination.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2012 15:24:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=149311" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (5) TMI 428 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112295</link>
      <description>A specially adapted battery assembly built from batteries, cells, racks and connecting accessories for use in a UPS is classifiable as a component part of the UPS under Heading 8504, not as a separate battery under Heading 8507.00, because a part essential to the working of the machine falls with the machine under Section Note 2(b) of Section XVI. The duty demand could not be finally sustained on the existing record because the show cause notice proceeded on batteries, while the dispute concerned battery assemblies; the actual nature of the goods cleared required factual verification. The classification adopted by the Assistant Collector was upheld, the contrary appellate order was set aside, and the demand issue was remanded for fresh determination.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112295</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>