<?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>2009 (1) TMI 125 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33311</link>
    <description>Tariff classification of modified vapour absorption chillers turned on principal purpose and actual end-use; because the units were used to produce chilled water for cooling applications, they were treated as refrigerating equipment under Heading 8418.10 rather than as parts of air-conditioning machinery under sub-heading 8418.90. Lithium bromide was held not includible in assessable value because, although essential for operation, it remained a distinct bought-out item and did not become part of the machine. The abatement claim under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) depended on proof that the realised price was cum-duty, so the issue was remanded for fresh verification of the records.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 03 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=71944" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (1) TMI 125 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33311</link>
      <description>Tariff classification of modified vapour absorption chillers turned on principal purpose and actual end-use; because the units were used to produce chilled water for cooling applications, they were treated as refrigerating equipment under Heading 8418.10 rather than as parts of air-conditioning machinery under sub-heading 8418.90. Lithium bromide was held not includible in assessable value because, although essential for operation, it remained a distinct bought-out item and did not become part of the machine. The abatement claim under Section 4(4)(d)(ii) depended on proof that the realised price was cum-duty, so the issue was remanded for fresh verification of the records.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33311</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>