https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362085 A guest room control system fitted with a thermostat was treated as temperature-control equipment, so classification followed its assembled functional character rather than the standalone description of one component. On that basis, Heading 9032.11 was upheld for the system and Heading 9032.91 for its parts, and the challenge to classification failed. Because the temperature-control capability had not been disclosed in the classification list or otherwise, suppression was found, the extended period of limitation was sustained, and the penalty was also upheld. The impugned order was left undisturbed on classification, limitation, duty, and penalty. en-us Mon, 21 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Jun 2018 10:27:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362085 A guest room control system fitted with a thermostat was treated as temperature-control equipment, so classification followed its assembled functional character rather than the standalone description of one component. On that basis, Heading 9032.11 was upheld for the system and Heading 9032.91 for its parts, and the challenge to classification failed. Because the temperature-control capability had not been disclosed in the classification list or otherwise, suppression was found, the extended period of limitation was sustained, and the penalty was also upheld. The impugned order was left undisturbed on classification, limitation, duty, and penalty. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 21 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362085