<?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>2005 (1) TMI 448 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114927</link>
    <description>Electric control panels fitted with DC drives, relays, switchgears and wiring for motor speed control were held classifiable under Heading 8537 as boards and panels equipped for electric control or distribution of electricity, rather than under Heading 8475 as parts of machinery. The Tribunal applied Note 2(a) of Section XVI and Rule 1 of the Interpretative Rules, emphasising that classification must follow the specific tariff entry covering the goods. Decisions relating to CKD/SKD clearances and machinery parts were distinguished on facts. The Revenue&#039;s classification was upheld and the assessee&#039;s challenge to the differential duty demand failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 13:26:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151926" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (1) TMI 448 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114927</link>
      <description>Electric control panels fitted with DC drives, relays, switchgears and wiring for motor speed control were held classifiable under Heading 8537 as boards and panels equipped for electric control or distribution of electricity, rather than under Heading 8475 as parts of machinery. The Tribunal applied Note 2(a) of Section XVI and Rule 1 of the Interpretative Rules, emphasising that classification must follow the specific tariff entry covering the goods. Decisions relating to CKD/SKD clearances and machinery parts were distinguished on facts. The Revenue&#039;s classification was upheld and the assessee&#039;s challenge to the differential duty demand failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114927</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>