<?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>1985 (8) TMI 228 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73340</link>
    <description>MS specials such as bends, tees and Y-junctions used to join, divert or change the direction of pipes were treated as fittings, not pipes, because their function was accessory rather than conveyance; they were therefore classifiable under Tariff Item 68 and not Tariff Item 26AA(iv). The department&#039;s knowledge of manufacture and clearance through classification lists and correspondence meant that fraud, suppression or misstatement was not proved, so the extended limitation period was unavailable. Recovery was confined to the normal six-month period, and confiscation and penalty were set aside because the factual basis for penal action was not established.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sun, 04 Aug 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 May 2011 12:10:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=111619" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (8) TMI 228 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73340</link>
      <description>MS specials such as bends, tees and Y-junctions used to join, divert or change the direction of pipes were treated as fittings, not pipes, because their function was accessory rather than conveyance; they were therefore classifiable under Tariff Item 68 and not Tariff Item 26AA(iv). The department&#039;s knowledge of manufacture and clearance through classification lists and correspondence meant that fraud, suppression or misstatement was not proved, so the extended limitation period was unavailable. Recovery was confined to the normal six-month period, and confiscation and penalty were set aside because the factual basis for penal action was not established.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Sun, 04 Aug 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73340</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>