<?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>2020 (1) TMI 595 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390982</link>
    <description>Fuel pump unit assemblies imported for two-wheelers were held classifiable under heading 8413 as pumps for liquids, not under heading 8409 as parts of engines, because Section Note 2 to Section XVI requires goods specifically covered by a Chapter 84 heading to be classified in that heading rather than as residual parts. The HSN notes and classification principles supported the specific heading for pumps, including pumps used for fuel, lubricating or cooling media in internal combustion piston engines. On limitation, continued adoption of the same wrong classification across numerous bills of entry was treated as intentional misstatement, so the extended period was available and the demand was not time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2020 11:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=600467" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (1) TMI 595 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390982</link>
      <description>Fuel pump unit assemblies imported for two-wheelers were held classifiable under heading 8413 as pumps for liquids, not under heading 8409 as parts of engines, because Section Note 2 to Section XVI requires goods specifically covered by a Chapter 84 heading to be classified in that heading rather than as residual parts. The HSN notes and classification principles supported the specific heading for pumps, including pumps used for fuel, lubricating or cooling media in internal combustion piston engines. On limitation, continued adoption of the same wrong classification across numerous bills of entry was treated as intentional misstatement, so the extended period was available and the demand was not time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390982</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>