<?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 (7) TMI 1273 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363965</link>
    <description>Sale proceeds reflected in the balance sheets were matched against goods described in records as wooden rollers, left over rollers, firewood and end cuttings arising from the peeling process. The material showed that the assessee manufactured veneer and plywood from timber logs, and that the disputed items were only remnants left after peeling was completed. As the department produced no independent evidence to show that the goods were cuttings or trimmings of plywood falling under Chapter Heading 4408.40, the appellate finding that they were waste material was upheld. The proposed classification therefore failed and the demand for differential duty was not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2020 14:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=527738" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (7) TMI 1273 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363965</link>
      <description>Sale proceeds reflected in the balance sheets were matched against goods described in records as wooden rollers, left over rollers, firewood and end cuttings arising from the peeling process. The material showed that the assessee manufactured veneer and plywood from timber logs, and that the disputed items were only remnants left after peeling was completed. As the department produced no independent evidence to show that the goods were cuttings or trimmings of plywood falling under Chapter Heading 4408.40, the appellate finding that they were waste material was upheld. The proposed classification therefore failed and the demand for differential duty was not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363965</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>