<?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>2007 (4) TMI 109 - CESTAT,  BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1992</link>
    <description>A free-standing, pre-fabricated relocatable public telephone booth was held classifiable under Chapter Heading 9406.00 as a prefabricated building rather than under Chapter Heading 7308.00 as an iron or steel structure. Applying the chapter notes and HSN Explanatory Notes, the Tribunal treated Chapter 94 as covering prefabricated buildings and similar structures assembled on site, and found the booth&#039;s prefabricated walls, doors, floor boards and ceilings to fit that description. It also noted that the larger bench ruling relied on by the Revenue concerned excisability of iron and steel structures, not classification of prefabricated buildings. The assessee&#039;s classification was upheld and the Revenue&#039;s view rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=41370" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (4) TMI 109 - CESTAT,  BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1992</link>
      <description>A free-standing, pre-fabricated relocatable public telephone booth was held classifiable under Chapter Heading 9406.00 as a prefabricated building rather than under Chapter Heading 7308.00 as an iron or steel structure. Applying the chapter notes and HSN Explanatory Notes, the Tribunal treated Chapter 94 as covering prefabricated buildings and similar structures assembled on site, and found the booth&#039;s prefabricated walls, doors, floor boards and ceilings to fit that description. It also noted that the larger bench ruling relied on by the Revenue concerned excisability of iron and steel structures, not classification of prefabricated buildings. The assessee&#039;s classification was upheld and the Revenue&#039;s view rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1992</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>