<?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>2023 (12) TMI 475 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446791</link>
    <description>Special purpose bullet-proof armoured vehicles were classified under Heading 8705 rather than Heading 8710 because their design, VRDE certification and use by Army and paramilitary forces showed a specific tariff description applicable to special purpose vehicles. The Tribunal followed the earlier decision in the assessee&#039;s own case and the supporting Metaltech Motor Bodies ruling, applying the more specific classification over a broader armoured-vehicle entry. As the goods fell under Heading 8705, the related duty demand failed; the valuation dispute under Rule 10A became inconsequential and the penalty could not be sustained because it depended on a valid duty demand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Dec 2023 19:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=734768" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (12) TMI 475 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446791</link>
      <description>Special purpose bullet-proof armoured vehicles were classified under Heading 8705 rather than Heading 8710 because their design, VRDE certification and use by Army and paramilitary forces showed a specific tariff description applicable to special purpose vehicles. The Tribunal followed the earlier decision in the assessee&#039;s own case and the supporting Metaltech Motor Bodies ruling, applying the more specific classification over a broader armoured-vehicle entry. As the goods fell under Heading 8705, the related duty demand failed; the valuation dispute under Rule 10A became inconsequential and the penalty could not be sustained because it depended on a valid duty demand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446791</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>