<?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 (7) TMI 189 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345077</link>
    <description>Exemption under Notification No. 162/86-CE for vehicles or body-built chassis falling under headings 8701, 8702 or 8704 depended on whether duty had already been paid on the chassis and whether the FRP body-building activity brought the goods within the relevant chapter note and exemption entry. The record was insufficient for a final finding on the duty status of the chassis, the inputs received, and the output cleared from the premises, so those matters required re-examination by the adjudicating authority. The same factual scrutiny would also determine whether clubbing of clearances across connected units was warranted. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with a fair opportunity to adduce evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Jul 2017 17:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=479900" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (7) TMI 189 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345077</link>
      <description>Exemption under Notification No. 162/86-CE for vehicles or body-built chassis falling under headings 8701, 8702 or 8704 depended on whether duty had already been paid on the chassis and whether the FRP body-building activity brought the goods within the relevant chapter note and exemption entry. The record was insufficient for a final finding on the duty status of the chassis, the inputs received, and the output cleared from the premises, so those matters required re-examination by the adjudicating authority. The same factual scrutiny would also determine whether clubbing of clearances across connected units was warranted. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with a fair opportunity to adduce evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345077</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>