<?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>2008 (7) TMI 261 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32491</link>
    <description>Lift components cleared in stages under an installation contract were held classifiable as parts under Chapter Heading 8431, because Rule 2(a) applies only where the goods presented for assessment, taken together, have the essential character of the complete machine. The manufactured items were only parts, while essential bought-out items remained outside the factory clearances, so classification as lifts or lifting machinery under Chapter Heading 8428 was rejected. The extended-period demand was set aside as time-barred since the classification issue was already within departmental knowledge and suppression was not established. Penalty under Rule 173Q was also deleted because the dispute was interpretational and consistently contested.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 01 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=71131" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 261 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32491</link>
      <description>Lift components cleared in stages under an installation contract were held classifiable as parts under Chapter Heading 8431, because Rule 2(a) applies only where the goods presented for assessment, taken together, have the essential character of the complete machine. The manufactured items were only parts, while essential bought-out items remained outside the factory clearances, so classification as lifts or lifting machinery under Chapter Heading 8428 was rejected. The extended-period demand was set aside as time-barred since the classification issue was already within departmental knowledge and suppression was not established. Penalty under Rule 173Q was also deleted because the dispute was interpretational and consistently contested.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32491</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>