<?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>2017 (4) TMI 689 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341719</link>
    <description>Braided goods manufactured on braiding machines were held classifiable as braids under Chapter Heading 58.08, not as lace under Chapter Heading 58.04. The classification turned on the product&#039;s functional and technical identity, the manufacturing process, and credible expert evidence from factory inspections, which supported the description of ornamental braids made by the classical braiding process. The departmental opinion was given less weight because it was not based on examination of the assessee&#039;s process, and cross-examination of the departmental expert was not allowed. On that basis, the lower classification, the demand, and the consequential penalty could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Jan 2018 12:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=465977" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (4) TMI 689 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341719</link>
      <description>Braided goods manufactured on braiding machines were held classifiable as braids under Chapter Heading 58.08, not as lace under Chapter Heading 58.04. The classification turned on the product&#039;s functional and technical identity, the manufacturing process, and credible expert evidence from factory inspections, which supported the description of ornamental braids made by the classical braiding process. The departmental opinion was given less weight because it was not based on examination of the assessee&#039;s process, and cross-examination of the departmental expert was not allowed. On that basis, the lower classification, the demand, and the consequential penalty could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341719</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>