https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114505 Contractual documents, technical literature, and unchallenged expert evidence showed the supplied item was a Mobile Chilled Water Plant with major refrigeration components and a function of generating chilled water, so it was not classifiable as a Heat Exchanger and was placed under Heading 84.18. The contract was on a principal-to-principal basis and required manufacture and supply according to drawings and technical know-how, so the appellants were treated as manufacturers rather than hired labourers. Because duty had to be recomputed on the correct classification, claims for Modvat credit, accessories-related relief, and penalty under Rule 173Q were remanded for fresh consideration. en-us Thu, 23 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 May 2012 12:47:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114505 Contractual documents, technical literature, and unchallenged expert evidence showed the supplied item was a Mobile Chilled Water Plant with major refrigeration components and a function of generating chilled water, so it was not classifiable as a Heat Exchanger and was placed under Heading 84.18. The contract was on a principal-to-principal basis and required manufacture and supply according to drawings and technical know-how, so the appellants were treated as manufacturers rather than hired labourers. Because duty had to be recomputed on the correct classification, claims for Modvat credit, accessories-related relief, and penalty under Rule 173Q were remanded for fresh consideration. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 23 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114505