<?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>1988 (4) TMI 233 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73849</link>
    <description>A specific tariff entry describing furnace oil by prescribed technical parameters governs classification, and an unstated requirement such as liquid state at room temperature or pour point cannot be added to displace that entry. As the test reports satisfied the relevant parameters and the product was marketed and supplied as furnace oil, classification under Tariff Item 10 was upheld rather than the residuary entry. On limitation, disclosure of the test reports and related facts negated suppression or misstatement with intent to evade duty, so the extended period under section 11A was unavailable and the demand was time-barred. The revenue challenge failed on both merits and limitation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Jun 2011 18:39:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=112128" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (4) TMI 233 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73849</link>
      <description>A specific tariff entry describing furnace oil by prescribed technical parameters governs classification, and an unstated requirement such as liquid state at room temperature or pour point cannot be added to displace that entry. As the test reports satisfied the relevant parameters and the product was marketed and supplied as furnace oil, classification under Tariff Item 10 was upheld rather than the residuary entry. On limitation, disclosure of the test reports and related facts negated suppression or misstatement with intent to evade duty, so the extended period under section 11A was unavailable and the demand was time-barred. The revenue challenge failed on both merits and limitation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73849</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>