<?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 (8) TMI 442 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76107</link>
    <description>Petroleum hydrocarbon solvents could not be classified as motor spirit under Chapter sub-heading 2710.19 because the record did not show conclusive testing of suitability for use in spark ignition engines. Classification on that basis required reliable proof that the product was actually, practically and commercially fit for the prescribed use; a tentative technical opinion was insufficient. With no specific test report and no available sample for proper examination, the classification failed, and the related demand, interest, penalties and confiscation based on that classification also could not stand. The impugned order was set aside and consequential relief followed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=114329" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (8) TMI 442 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76107</link>
      <description>Petroleum hydrocarbon solvents could not be classified as motor spirit under Chapter sub-heading 2710.19 because the record did not show conclusive testing of suitability for use in spark ignition engines. Classification on that basis required reliable proof that the product was actually, practically and commercially fit for the prescribed use; a tentative technical opinion was insufficient. With no specific test report and no available sample for proper examination, the classification failed, and the related demand, interest, penalties and confiscation based on that classification also could not stand. The impugned order was set aside and consequential relief followed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76107</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>