<?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>2012 (6) TMI 194 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213874</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, KOLKATA upheld the lower authorities&#039; decision in a case concerning the classification of goods under Chapter Heading 84.33. The Respondents&#039; classification of Tea Sorting Machine and Tea Extractor Machine under Heading No.84.33 was deemed valid, attracting nil rate of duty and SSI exemption notifications. The Revenue&#039;s claims of misclassification and suppression of facts were dismissed, emphasizing the importance of approved classification lists and the ability of taxing authorities to change views prospectively. The judgment favored the Respondents, dismissing the Revenue&#039;s Appeals and the Respondents&#039; Cross Objection.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2012 18:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=187274" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (6) TMI 194 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213874</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, KOLKATA upheld the lower authorities&#039; decision in a case concerning the classification of goods under Chapter Heading 84.33. The Respondents&#039; classification of Tea Sorting Machine and Tea Extractor Machine under Heading No.84.33 was deemed valid, attracting nil rate of duty and SSI exemption notifications. The Revenue&#039;s claims of misclassification and suppression of facts were dismissed, emphasizing the importance of approved classification lists and the ability of taxing authorities to change views prospectively. The judgment favored the Respondents, dismissing the Revenue&#039;s Appeals and the Respondents&#039; Cross Objection.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213874</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>