<?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>2018 (3) TMI 166 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356463</link>
    <description>For exemption entries covering tiles known commercially as Mosaic Tiles, the decisive test is commercial understanding in the market, not the manufacturer&#039;s chosen invoice or catalogue description. Tiles marketed as Chequered Tiles, Rockard Tiles, Plain Cement Tiles and Paver Blocks were treated as falling within the commercial genus of Mosaic Tiles because their pattern, composition and end-use indicated a mosaic character, and the Revenue did not produce reliable negative evidence to disprove that market understanding. Supportive trade affidavits were also considered relevant. The products therefore remained eligible for exemption, and the demand, penalties and confiscation were not sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2019 14:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=511448" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (3) TMI 166 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356463</link>
      <description>For exemption entries covering tiles known commercially as Mosaic Tiles, the decisive test is commercial understanding in the market, not the manufacturer&#039;s chosen invoice or catalogue description. Tiles marketed as Chequered Tiles, Rockard Tiles, Plain Cement Tiles and Paver Blocks were treated as falling within the commercial genus of Mosaic Tiles because their pattern, composition and end-use indicated a mosaic character, and the Revenue did not produce reliable negative evidence to disprove that market understanding. Supportive trade affidavits were also considered relevant. The products therefore remained eligible for exemption, and the demand, penalties and confiscation were not sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356463</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>