<?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>2002 (2) TMI 167 - CEGAT, COURT NO. III, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51132</link>
    <description>Imported acrylic sheet off-cuts and broken pieces were treated as single thermoplastic material, but the classification dispute turned on whether they had been converted into primary forms excluded from Chapter 39 or remained waste, parings and scrap. The Revenue&#039;s evidence was found insufficient because the Chemical Examiner relied on visual inspection and HSN references without a proper chemical examination or stated factual basis. An expert opinion must disclose its grounds and cannot itself decide tariff classification. As the Revenue bears the burden of proving the claimed heading, unsupported assertions were inadequate to displace the assessee&#039;s classification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Sep 2010 18:51:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89611" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (2) TMI 167 - CEGAT, COURT NO. III, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51132</link>
      <description>Imported acrylic sheet off-cuts and broken pieces were treated as single thermoplastic material, but the classification dispute turned on whether they had been converted into primary forms excluded from Chapter 39 or remained waste, parings and scrap. The Revenue&#039;s evidence was found insufficient because the Chemical Examiner relied on visual inspection and HSN references without a proper chemical examination or stated factual basis. An expert opinion must disclose its grounds and cannot itself decide tariff classification. As the Revenue bears the burden of proving the claimed heading, unsupported assertions were inadequate to displace the assessee&#039;s classification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51132</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>