<?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>1996 (4) TMI 524 - ITAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288346</link>
    <description>Polyurethane foam doors and panels were examined for classification under Chapter 84 or Chapter 39 by reference to their inherent nature and actual use. The record contained only an unsubstantiated allegation that the goods were used exclusively in refrigerating appliances, while the catalogue and dimensions suggested use as panels or doors with wider applications. The burden was on the Revenue to establish Chapter 84 classification and exclude Chapter 39, but the existing orders did not determine the products&#039; exact function, and the assessee had not been properly informed of the treatment adopted. The order was set aside and the matter remanded for de novo adjudication after determining character, use, and natural justice compliance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2020 12:14:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=614225" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (4) TMI 524 - ITAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288346</link>
      <description>Polyurethane foam doors and panels were examined for classification under Chapter 84 or Chapter 39 by reference to their inherent nature and actual use. The record contained only an unsubstantiated allegation that the goods were used exclusively in refrigerating appliances, while the catalogue and dimensions suggested use as panels or doors with wider applications. The burden was on the Revenue to establish Chapter 84 classification and exclude Chapter 39, but the existing orders did not determine the products&#039; exact function, and the assessee had not been properly informed of the treatment adopted. The order was set aside and the matter remanded for de novo adjudication after determining character, use, and natural justice compliance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288346</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>