<?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>Appeal allowed: armoured special-purpose vehicles classed under tariff item 8705 90 00, Rule 10A valuation rejected</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94282</link>
    <description>CESTAT allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order and held that the impugned bullet-proof special purpose vehicles are properly classifiable under tariff item 8705 90 00 (special-purpose armoured vehicles) and not under heading 8710. The Tribunal found the vehicles&#039; primary purpose is rendition of defence/policing services rather than carriage of persons or goods, thus excluding them from headings for passenger vehicles; valuation under Rule 10A was not sustained. The decision followed the Bench&#039;s earlier ruling in the appellant&#039;s favour, and with no stay or appellate challenge by Revenue on record, the Tribunal declined to depart from that precedent and granted relief to the Appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2025 08:52:41 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2025 08:52:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=865607" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Appeal allowed: armoured special-purpose vehicles classed under tariff item 8705 90 00, Rule 10A valuation rejected</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94282</link>
      <description>CESTAT allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order and held that the impugned bullet-proof special purpose vehicles are properly classifiable under tariff item 8705 90 00 (special-purpose armoured vehicles) and not under heading 8710. The Tribunal found the vehicles&#039; primary purpose is rendition of defence/policing services rather than carriage of persons or goods, thus excluding them from headings for passenger vehicles; valuation under Rule 10A was not sustained. The decision followed the Bench&#039;s earlier ruling in the appellant&#039;s favour, and with no stay or appellate challenge by Revenue on record, the Tribunal declined to depart from that precedent and granted relief to the Appellant.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2025 08:52:41 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94282</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>