<?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 (9) TMI 783 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216975</link>
    <description>Condenser and evaporator assemblies imported for domestic air-conditioners were held to fall under Heading 8415.90 as parts of air-conditioning machines, not under Heading 8419.50 as heat exchangers. The tariff headings were read with the section notes and HSN explanatory notes, and the exclusion in Heading 8419 could not be bypassed to classify goods used in domestic air-conditioning under that entry. Technical descriptions describing the items as condenser and evaporator assemblies supported classification by their proper tariff description rather than by the lower-duty label claimed by the importer. The classification adopted by the adjudicating authority was upheld and the appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2012 18:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=190353" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (9) TMI 783 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216975</link>
      <description>Condenser and evaporator assemblies imported for domestic air-conditioners were held to fall under Heading 8415.90 as parts of air-conditioning machines, not under Heading 8419.50 as heat exchangers. The tariff headings were read with the section notes and HSN explanatory notes, and the exclusion in Heading 8419 could not be bypassed to classify goods used in domestic air-conditioning under that entry. Technical descriptions describing the items as condenser and evaporator assemblies supported classification by their proper tariff description rather than by the lower-duty label claimed by the importer. The classification adopted by the adjudicating authority was upheld and the appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216975</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>