<?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>2025 (1) TMI 219 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764157</link>
    <description>Railway locomotive parts manufactured to railway specifications and meant for diesel locomotives were classified under Chapter 86 as parts of railway locomotives, because Section XVII Note 3 required the sole or principal use test for goods used with Chapter 86 vehicles. The exclusionary approach based on Note 2(e) was not accepted on these facts, and the goods were treated as parts of railway diesel locomotives under heading 86079100. Since the classification demand failed, the related duty demand also failed. The record did not show wilful suppression or intent to evade duty, so the extended period of limitation and penalties were held not invocable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Jan 2025 08:44:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=786427" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (1) TMI 219 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764157</link>
      <description>Railway locomotive parts manufactured to railway specifications and meant for diesel locomotives were classified under Chapter 86 as parts of railway locomotives, because Section XVII Note 3 required the sole or principal use test for goods used with Chapter 86 vehicles. The exclusionary approach based on Note 2(e) was not accepted on these facts, and the goods were treated as parts of railway diesel locomotives under heading 86079100. Since the classification demand failed, the related duty demand also failed. The record did not show wilful suppression or intent to evade duty, so the extended period of limitation and penalties were held not invocable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764157</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>