<?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>2015 (1) TMI 218 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255019</link>
    <description>The silo storage system classification dispute was sent back for fresh consideration because the original authority had relied on a limited set of purchase orders and had not fully examined the appellant&#039;s additional materials, including brochures, comparative invoices and the claim that several clearances involved silos supplied with accessories as a complete system. The Tribunal noted that the earlier precedent required close scrutiny of the facts of each clearance, so the classification issue needed reconsideration on the full record. The matter was therefore remanded to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh decision after considering the additional submissions and evidence, subject to a pre-deposit condition for compliance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2015 14:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=373329" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (1) TMI 218 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255019</link>
      <description>The silo storage system classification dispute was sent back for fresh consideration because the original authority had relied on a limited set of purchase orders and had not fully examined the appellant&#039;s additional materials, including brochures, comparative invoices and the claim that several clearances involved silos supplied with accessories as a complete system. The Tribunal noted that the earlier precedent required close scrutiny of the facts of each clearance, so the classification issue needed reconsideration on the full record. The matter was therefore remanded to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh decision after considering the additional submissions and evidence, subject to a pre-deposit condition for compliance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255019</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>