<?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>2022 (9) TMI 5 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427060</link>
    <description>Fabrication of tipper bodies and garbage compactors on duty-paid chassis in an integrated process did not create separate identifiable goods for independent clearance. On that basis, the goods were treated according to the applicable Chapter 87 classification framework, with garbage compactors regarded as special purpose motor vehicles and the tipper bodies falling within the motor vehicle exemption structure; denial of exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE was not warranted. The demand also failed because the notice rested on an alleged physical verification that was not supported by any contemporaneous report or panchanama, while later record evidence and prior period findings supported the assessee&#039;s version. The proceedings were therefore sustained in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Sep 2022 07:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=689410" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (9) TMI 5 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427060</link>
      <description>Fabrication of tipper bodies and garbage compactors on duty-paid chassis in an integrated process did not create separate identifiable goods for independent clearance. On that basis, the goods were treated according to the applicable Chapter 87 classification framework, with garbage compactors regarded as special purpose motor vehicles and the tipper bodies falling within the motor vehicle exemption structure; denial of exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE was not warranted. The demand also failed because the notice rested on an alleged physical verification that was not supported by any contemporaneous report or panchanama, while later record evidence and prior period findings supported the assessee&#039;s version. The proceedings were therefore sustained in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427060</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>