<?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>2006 (6) TMI 44 -  Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=869</link>
    <description>A fabricated manifold mounted on a vehicle chassis for carrying cylinders was classified under Heading 8707.00, not as a gas container under Heading 7311.00, because the cylinders were the actual containers and the manifold was a separate structure. The Tribunal also treated the goods as eligible for exemption under Notification No. 5/98, since they were manufactured in a factory and mounted on a chassis for the stated purpose. On valuation, inclusion of the value of gas cylinders and other distinct components in the assessable value of the manifolds was rejected, particularly where the departmental demand was not properly quantified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40303" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (6) TMI 44 -  Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=869</link>
      <description>A fabricated manifold mounted on a vehicle chassis for carrying cylinders was classified under Heading 8707.00, not as a gas container under Heading 7311.00, because the cylinders were the actual containers and the manifold was a separate structure. The Tribunal also treated the goods as eligible for exemption under Notification No. 5/98, since they were manufactured in a factory and mounted on a chassis for the stated purpose. On valuation, inclusion of the value of gas cylinders and other distinct components in the assessable value of the manifolds was rejected, particularly where the departmental demand was not properly quantified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=869</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>