<?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 (10) TMI 118 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52303</link>
    <description>Complete car air-conditioning goods are classifiable as a finished machine only if they contain all essential components identified in the applicable Board circular; if any essential component is missing, the supply is classifiable as parts. The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority had not verified whether all required components were actually supplied from the factory or trading warehouse, so the classification issue was remanded for fresh factual verification. Because the dispute concerned tariff interpretation and classification, penalty on the company under section 11AC and on the individual under rule 209A was held not sustainable and was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Jul 2024 14:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90781" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (10) TMI 118 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52303</link>
      <description>Complete car air-conditioning goods are classifiable as a finished machine only if they contain all essential components identified in the applicable Board circular; if any essential component is missing, the supply is classifiable as parts. The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority had not verified whether all required components were actually supplied from the factory or trading warehouse, so the classification issue was remanded for fresh factual verification. Because the dispute concerned tariff interpretation and classification, penalty on the company under section 11AC and on the individual under rule 209A was held not sustainable and was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52303</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>