<?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>2006 (5) TMI 368 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119665</link>
    <description>Cab-fitted chassis remained classifiable under Heading 87.06 because the Tribunal treated a chassis fitted with a cab as distinct from a completed motor vehicle for transport of goods. The appellants&#039; reliance on the tariff note concerning mounting of body, structure or equipment on chassis was not accepted on the facts, as no complete motor vehicle had emerged in their hands and the cited precedent involved a different body-building situation. The Tribunal also noted the absence of financial hardship and found that a strong prima facie case for complete waiver of pre-deposit had not been established, leading to only partial stay on compliance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Jul 2012 14:04:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=156661" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (5) TMI 368 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119665</link>
      <description>Cab-fitted chassis remained classifiable under Heading 87.06 because the Tribunal treated a chassis fitted with a cab as distinct from a completed motor vehicle for transport of goods. The appellants&#039; reliance on the tariff note concerning mounting of body, structure or equipment on chassis was not accepted on the facts, as no complete motor vehicle had emerged in their hands and the cited precedent involved a different body-building situation. The Tribunal also noted the absence of financial hardship and found that a strong prima facie case for complete waiver of pre-deposit had not been established, leading to only partial stay on compliance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119665</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>