<?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>2016 (12) TMI 137 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335492</link>
    <description>Imported machinery was required to be classified according to its individual description and function under the relevant tariff headings, rather than as dairy machinery merely because it was used in a dairy-based production plant. Altered specification sheets could not override the original supplier documents showing different HS codes and equipment descriptions, so exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-CE was unavailable on the claimed classification. On the penalty issue, no active personal role or deliberate evasion was established against the Managing Director, and the employee was found to have acted under instructions without personal gain, so the individual penalties were not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2018 14:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=450387" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 137 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335492</link>
      <description>Imported machinery was required to be classified according to its individual description and function under the relevant tariff headings, rather than as dairy machinery merely because it was used in a dairy-based production plant. Altered specification sheets could not override the original supplier documents showing different HS codes and equipment descriptions, so exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-CE was unavailable on the claimed classification. On the penalty issue, no active personal role or deliberate evasion was established against the Managing Director, and the employee was found to have acted under instructions without personal gain, so the individual penalties were not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335492</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>