<?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>2005 (7) TMI 649 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172349</link>
    <description>Parboiling and drying plant and machinery performing multiple functions, including parboiling, cleaning, sorting and grading, was held classifiable under Chapter Heading 8419.00 rather than Chapter Heading 84.37. Note 4 to Section XVI was found inapplicable because it applies only to machines made up of components working together to achieve a single clearly defined function. As the heat exchanger was used for parboiling and the equipment was not confined to one defined function, classification under Heading 84.37 was rejected and the Revenue&#039;s reliance on the HSN explanatory notes was accepted. The impugned classification order was set aside and the Revenue&#039;s appeal succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2015 16:02:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=393912" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (7) TMI 649 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172349</link>
      <description>Parboiling and drying plant and machinery performing multiple functions, including parboiling, cleaning, sorting and grading, was held classifiable under Chapter Heading 8419.00 rather than Chapter Heading 84.37. Note 4 to Section XVI was found inapplicable because it applies only to machines made up of components working together to achieve a single clearly defined function. As the heat exchanger was used for parboiling and the equipment was not confined to one defined function, classification under Heading 84.37 was rejected and the Revenue&#039;s reliance on the HSN explanatory notes was accepted. The impugned classification order was set aside and the Revenue&#039;s appeal succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172349</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>