<?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 (12) TMI 998 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269694</link>
    <description>Paddle wheel aerators and their parts imported for aquaculture were treated as agricultural machinery classifiable under Chapter Heading 8436, not as residual machines under Chapter Heading 8479. The Tribunal read Heading 8436 as a wide and inclusive entry covering other agricultural machinery, relied on the HSN note that &quot;includes&quot; is illustrative, and treated aquaculture and fish farming as part of the agricultural activity supported by the policy framework and the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act, 2005. It held that a machine specifically used in aqua farming cannot be moved to the residual heading merely because aquaculture is not expressly named in the tariff; the differential duty demand was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Oct 2016 12:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=409675" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (12) TMI 998 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269694</link>
      <description>Paddle wheel aerators and their parts imported for aquaculture were treated as agricultural machinery classifiable under Chapter Heading 8436, not as residual machines under Chapter Heading 8479. The Tribunal read Heading 8436 as a wide and inclusive entry covering other agricultural machinery, relied on the HSN note that &quot;includes&quot; is illustrative, and treated aquaculture and fish farming as part of the agricultural activity supported by the policy framework and the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act, 2005. It held that a machine specifically used in aqua farming cannot be moved to the residual heading merely because aquaculture is not expressly named in the tariff; the differential duty demand was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269694</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>