<?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 (7) TMI 1000 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774932</link>
    <description>Classification of the manufactured goods depended on their composition and manufacturing process under the relevant tariff heading. Sand-lime articles made from sand, lime and water, pressure-moulded and steam-treated in autoclaves, were covered by the broader tariff scheme for articles of cement, concrete or artificial stone. On the evidence, sand and lime were the principal constituents and cement was only an additive or binder. The department&#039;s material, including incomplete reports and third-party statements, was insufficient to establish that the goods were cement bricks. The goods were therefore classified as sand lime bricks, and the attempted reclassification as cement bricks was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2025 08:19:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=836694" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 1000 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774932</link>
      <description>Classification of the manufactured goods depended on their composition and manufacturing process under the relevant tariff heading. Sand-lime articles made from sand, lime and water, pressure-moulded and steam-treated in autoclaves, were covered by the broader tariff scheme for articles of cement, concrete or artificial stone. On the evidence, sand and lime were the principal constituents and cement was only an additive or binder. The department&#039;s material, including incomplete reports and third-party statements, was insufficient to establish that the goods were cement bricks. The goods were therefore classified as sand lime bricks, and the attempted reclassification as cement bricks was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774932</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>