<?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 (2) TMI 1052 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766505</link>
    <description>CESTAT Chennai held that fuel filter assembly, water pump assembly, cylinder head sub-assembly and cylinder liner stud assembly for high horse power railway locomotives are correctly classified under Chapter 8607 as railway locomotive parts, not under other headings as suggested by the Department. The Tribunal applied Note 3 of Section XVII and the sole/principal use test established in Westinghouse Saxby Farmer Ltd. SC decision. The respondent was entitled to concessional duty rates under Notification 12/2016-CE. The demand invoking extended limitation period under Section 11(4) CEA 1944 was rejected as classification of parts under Section XVII is admittedly complex, making the issue not free from doubt. Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Feb 2025 08:14:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=802194" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 1052 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766505</link>
      <description>CESTAT Chennai held that fuel filter assembly, water pump assembly, cylinder head sub-assembly and cylinder liner stud assembly for high horse power railway locomotives are correctly classified under Chapter 8607 as railway locomotive parts, not under other headings as suggested by the Department. The Tribunal applied Note 3 of Section XVII and the sole/principal use test established in Westinghouse Saxby Farmer Ltd. SC decision. The respondent was entitled to concessional duty rates under Notification 12/2016-CE. The demand invoking extended limitation period under Section 11(4) CEA 1944 was rejected as classification of parts under Section XVII is admittedly complex, making the issue not free from doubt. Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766505</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>