<?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 1280 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465050</link>
    <description>Classification of a Hot Film Air Mass Meter depended on its true function: the brochure showed it directly measured air intake and supplied data for fuel calculation and engine management, but did not establish that it was designed to control gas flow or possessed the control features required for Heading 9032. Applying the earlier decision in the same assessee&#039;s case, the Tribunal held that reclassification from a measuring instrument heading to an automatic control heading requires cogent proof of the controlling function. As the Revenue failed to discharge that burden, the goods were classifiable under CTH 9026 8090, not CTH 9032 8990, and denial of exemption under Notification No. 24/2005-Customs was not sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2025 20:56:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=869061" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 1280 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465050</link>
      <description>Classification of a Hot Film Air Mass Meter depended on its true function: the brochure showed it directly measured air intake and supplied data for fuel calculation and engine management, but did not establish that it was designed to control gas flow or possessed the control features required for Heading 9032. Applying the earlier decision in the same assessee&#039;s case, the Tribunal held that reclassification from a measuring instrument heading to an automatic control heading requires cogent proof of the controlling function. As the Revenue failed to discharge that burden, the goods were classifiable under CTH 9026 8090, not CTH 9032 8990, and denial of exemption under Notification No. 24/2005-Customs was not sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465050</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>