<?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 772 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336127</link>
    <description>The grain cleaning and drying machine was held to fall under Heading 8437.00 as machinery used in the milling industry, not under Heading 84.19 for treatment of materials by a process involving change of temperature. The classification turned on the machine&#039;s nature, purpose and actual use, and Heading 84.19 was found inapplicable because the revenue did not show that the goods squarely met that entry. The show cause notice lacked adequate factual particulars, and no technical test report or expert opinion was produced to rebut the assessee. As the revenue failed to discharge the burden of proof, the more specific entry matching the machine&#039;s principal use prevailed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Jan 2018 14:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=451707" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 772 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336127</link>
      <description>The grain cleaning and drying machine was held to fall under Heading 8437.00 as machinery used in the milling industry, not under Heading 84.19 for treatment of materials by a process involving change of temperature. The classification turned on the machine&#039;s nature, purpose and actual use, and Heading 84.19 was found inapplicable because the revenue did not show that the goods squarely met that entry. The show cause notice lacked adequate factual particulars, and no technical test report or expert opinion was produced to rebut the assessee. As the revenue failed to discharge the burden of proof, the more specific entry matching the machine&#039;s principal use prevailed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336127</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>