<?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 (8) TMI 236 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796363</link>
    <description>Weld mesh manufactured exclusively as identifiable top, bottom, side, door and partition components of poultry battery cages is described as classifiable as parts of poultry-keeping machinery under CETH 84369100. The competing entry for iron and steel structures applies to structural articles of the specified nature, and the text states that no convincing material or reasoning established that specialised weld-mesh cage components fall within that entry. An earlier poultry-equipment decision was considered inapposite because subsequent appellate proceedings accepted classification under CETH 84369100. Accordingly, rejection of that classification and proposed classification under CETH 73089090 are described as unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Aug 2026 08:48:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=915456" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (8) TMI 236 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796363</link>
      <description>Weld mesh manufactured exclusively as identifiable top, bottom, side, door and partition components of poultry battery cages is described as classifiable as parts of poultry-keeping machinery under CETH 84369100. The competing entry for iron and steel structures applies to structural articles of the specified nature, and the text states that no convincing material or reasoning established that specialised weld-mesh cage components fall within that entry. An earlier poultry-equipment decision was considered inapposite because subsequent appellate proceedings accepted classification under CETH 84369100. Accordingly, rejection of that classification and proposed classification under CETH 73089090 are described as unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796363</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>