<?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 (6) TMI 131 - CESTAT CHENNAI (LB)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248227</link>
    <description>Classification under Chapter 95 of the Central Excise Tariff turned on whether the products were toys, reduced-size models or puzzles under Heading 9503.00, or games under Heading 9504.90. Applying the chapter scheme, HSN explanatory notes and functional tests, the majority treated articles played according to rules, with competition and an outcome not predetermined, as games, while predominantly amusement-based playthings, including educational toys and reduced-size models, fell under Heading 9503.00; the dissent differed on four items only. On limitation and penalty, the demand was confined to the normal period under Section 11A, and penalties on the assessee and manager were not sustained because the dispute was a declared classification issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2016 17:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=356967" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (6) TMI 131 - CESTAT CHENNAI (LB)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248227</link>
      <description>Classification under Chapter 95 of the Central Excise Tariff turned on whether the products were toys, reduced-size models or puzzles under Heading 9503.00, or games under Heading 9504.90. Applying the chapter scheme, HSN explanatory notes and functional tests, the majority treated articles played according to rules, with competition and an outcome not predetermined, as games, while predominantly amusement-based playthings, including educational toys and reduced-size models, fell under Heading 9503.00; the dissent differed on four items only. On limitation and penalty, the demand was confined to the normal period under Section 11A, and penalties on the assessee and manager were not sustained because the dispute was a declared classification issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248227</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>