<?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>2014 (3) TMI 127 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244670</link>
    <description>Clearance of export-bound goods after job work, with service tax already paid on the activity, did not justify duty demand or penalties where the record showed no material indicating evasion; the demand, interest, and penalties against the shipyard appellant were set aside. A wooden hull with superstructure built to the specifications of a pleasure yacht was held to have acquired the essential character of a yacht, so classification under Heading 89.03 was upheld and the plea for Heading 89.06 was rejected. Penalties on the individual appellants were also set aside because the dispute was one of tariff interpretation. Limitation for the builder appellant was left for reconsideration by the adjudicating authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2015 12:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=347861" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (3) TMI 127 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244670</link>
      <description>Clearance of export-bound goods after job work, with service tax already paid on the activity, did not justify duty demand or penalties where the record showed no material indicating evasion; the demand, interest, and penalties against the shipyard appellant were set aside. A wooden hull with superstructure built to the specifications of a pleasure yacht was held to have acquired the essential character of a yacht, so classification under Heading 89.03 was upheld and the plea for Heading 89.06 was rejected. Penalties on the individual appellants were also set aside because the dispute was one of tariff interpretation. Limitation for the builder appellant was left for reconsideration by the adjudicating authority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244670</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>