<?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 (2) TMI 161 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34465</link>
    <description>Goods used in a paint-spraying setup were classified by their own function, not by their association with spraying. A spray painting booth was treated as an enclosure to contain overspray, and a paint circulating system as a circulation arrangement, so both fell under the residual Chapter 84 heading rather than the spraying-appliance heading. For air filters, paint filters, air motors, paint circulating pumps and related parts, the specific headings applicable to the principal goods prevailed over the general parts heading. Where the declared classification was accepted and no misdescription was shown, penalty could not be sustained against either the assessee or its General Manager.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=73088" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (2) TMI 161 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34465</link>
      <description>Goods used in a paint-spraying setup were classified by their own function, not by their association with spraying. A spray painting booth was treated as an enclosure to contain overspray, and a paint circulating system as a circulation arrangement, so both fell under the residual Chapter 84 heading rather than the spraying-appliance heading. For air filters, paint filters, air motors, paint circulating pumps and related parts, the specific headings applicable to the principal goods prevailed over the general parts heading. Where the declared classification was accepted and no misdescription was shown, penalty could not be sustained against either the assessee or its General Manager.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34465</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>