<?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>2003 (9) TMI 145 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52052</link>
    <description>Heater control lever assembly and panel heater control fitted in vehicles were held not classifiable as air-conditioner parts under Heading 84.15 because their principal function was to regulate and deflect air flow, not to perform the function of the air-conditioning system, and they were also not parts of the blower assembly under Heading 84.14. In the absence of a specific entry covering such air-deflecting goods, the residual Heading 84.79, sub-heading 8479.90, was applied. The penalty under Section 11AC did not survive once the substantive classification demand failed, and the valuation-related amount paid before the show cause notice did not indicate intent to evade duty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Sep 2010 14:46:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90530" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (9) TMI 145 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52052</link>
      <description>Heater control lever assembly and panel heater control fitted in vehicles were held not classifiable as air-conditioner parts under Heading 84.15 because their principal function was to regulate and deflect air flow, not to perform the function of the air-conditioning system, and they were also not parts of the blower assembly under Heading 84.14. In the absence of a specific entry covering such air-deflecting goods, the residual Heading 84.79, sub-heading 8479.90, was applied. The penalty under Section 11AC did not survive once the substantive classification demand failed, and the valuation-related amount paid before the show cause notice did not indicate intent to evade duty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52052</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>