<?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>2026 (7) TMI 83 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794197</link>
    <description>GI welded wire mesh supplied for poultry farms was held classifiable as welded wire mesh under Heading 7314, not as poultry keeping machinery or parts under Heading 8436, because intended end-use alone did not satisfy the tariff description or section notes. Erection, installation and commissioning activities at poultry farms were treated as taxable erection, commissioning and installation service, so the service tax demand was sustained. However, the extended period of limitation and penalties under Section 11AC, Rule 25 and Rule 26 were not invocable because the classification dispute involved bona fide interpretive and there was no material of suppression, wilful misstatement, or knowledge of confiscability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2026 08:07:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=909582" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (7) TMI 83 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794197</link>
      <description>GI welded wire mesh supplied for poultry farms was held classifiable as welded wire mesh under Heading 7314, not as poultry keeping machinery or parts under Heading 8436, because intended end-use alone did not satisfy the tariff description or section notes. Erection, installation and commissioning activities at poultry farms were treated as taxable erection, commissioning and installation service, so the service tax demand was sustained. However, the extended period of limitation and penalties under Section 11AC, Rule 25 and Rule 26 were not invocable because the classification dispute involved bona fide interpretive and there was no material of suppression, wilful misstatement, or knowledge of confiscability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794197</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>