<?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 (9) TMI 463 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122092</link>
    <description>For interim relief on classification of motor vehicles under Heading 8702.10 and liability to National Calamity Contingent Duty, the vehicle&#039;s passenger capacity was treated as the ative factor. A job-work statement was found insufficient to prove the claimed capacity, while Regional Transport Office certificates and the appellants&#039; own statements supported the departmental position that the vehicles carried 13 to 16 passengers. On that material, no strong prima facie case against duty liability was shown, so pre-deposit of the duty demand was directed within the stipulated time; waiver and stay were granted only for the penalty, subject to compliance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Aug 2012 15:08:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=159082" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (9) TMI 463 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122092</link>
      <description>For interim relief on classification of motor vehicles under Heading 8702.10 and liability to National Calamity Contingent Duty, the vehicle&#039;s passenger capacity was treated as the ative factor. A job-work statement was found insufficient to prove the claimed capacity, while Regional Transport Office certificates and the appellants&#039; own statements supported the departmental position that the vehicles carried 13 to 16 passengers. On that material, no strong prima facie case against duty liability was shown, so pre-deposit of the duty demand was directed within the stipulated time; waiver and stay were granted only for the penalty, subject to compliance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122092</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>