<?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>2009 (1) TMI 376 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75061</link>
    <description>Attar Hina manufactured by the traditional attar process was classified under Chapter Heading 3301 as a concentrate of essential oil in a fixed oil base, not under Chapter Heading 3302 as a mixture of odoriferous substances. The product&#039;s vapour-condensation process, chemical test material, and departmental correspondence supported treatment as an attar in sandalwood oil base, making the exemption under Notification No. 167/86-C.E. available and defeating the duty demand on merits. The extended period of limitation was also held inapplicable because disclosure through invoices and records, together with the material available to the assessee, did not establish wilful suppression or intent to evade duty; penalty and interest therefore could not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=113335" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (1) TMI 376 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75061</link>
      <description>Attar Hina manufactured by the traditional attar process was classified under Chapter Heading 3301 as a concentrate of essential oil in a fixed oil base, not under Chapter Heading 3302 as a mixture of odoriferous substances. The product&#039;s vapour-condensation process, chemical test material, and departmental correspondence supported treatment as an attar in sandalwood oil base, making the exemption under Notification No. 167/86-C.E. available and defeating the duty demand on merits. The extended period of limitation was also held inapplicable because disclosure through invoices and records, together with the material available to the assessee, did not establish wilful suppression or intent to evade duty; penalty and interest therefore could not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75061</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>