<?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>2000 (1) TMI 89 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49796</link>
    <description>Fan regulators cleared separately were classified under sub-heading 8414.99 as parts and accessories, rather than under sub-heading 8414.20, because the classification turned on the HSN structure for accessories not elsewhere specified. Differential duty was nevertheless held unsustainable where the clearances had been made on the basis of an approved classification list, since the approved basis of assessment could not be displaced to raise a short-levy demand in that manner. The classification issue was decided against the assessee, but the recovery claim failed because the approved classification list barred the proposed duty demand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Aug 2010 15:33:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88276" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (1) TMI 89 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49796</link>
      <description>Fan regulators cleared separately were classified under sub-heading 8414.99 as parts and accessories, rather than under sub-heading 8414.20, because the classification turned on the HSN structure for accessories not elsewhere specified. Differential duty was nevertheless held unsustainable where the clearances had been made on the basis of an approved classification list, since the approved basis of assessment could not be displaced to raise a short-levy demand in that manner. The classification issue was decided against the assessee, but the recovery claim failed because the approved classification list barred the proposed duty demand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49796</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>