<?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>2013 (11) TMI 876 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239699</link>
    <description>Classification of supplied fabricated goods under the tariff depends on the purchase orders, drawings and specifications, and on whether the goods retain the essential character of prefabricated buildings. Where contracts described only structural work, Heading 7308 for iron or steel structures applied; where the fabrication matched the design and essential character of a prefabricated building, Heading 9406 applied even if roofing sheets or walls were separately procured. In a pure classification dispute, penalty was found unsustainable because the controversy concerned tariff interpretation rather than penal misconduct. The duty demand was accordingly confined to the disputed purchase orders and the matter required re-quantification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Oct 2017 15:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=336326" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (11) TMI 876 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239699</link>
      <description>Classification of supplied fabricated goods under the tariff depends on the purchase orders, drawings and specifications, and on whether the goods retain the essential character of prefabricated buildings. Where contracts described only structural work, Heading 7308 for iron or steel structures applied; where the fabrication matched the design and essential character of a prefabricated building, Heading 9406 applied even if roofing sheets or walls were separately procured. In a pure classification dispute, penalty was found unsustainable because the controversy concerned tariff interpretation rather than penal misconduct. The duty demand was accordingly confined to the disputed purchase orders and the matter required re-quantification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239699</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>