<?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>1995 (5) TMI 103 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84181</link>
    <description>Products described as feed additives with anti-coccidial and growth-promoting properties were examined for classification under Chapter 23 or Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The text applies the principle that Chapter 23 is confined to animal-feeding preparations of the specified kind, while products with medicinal or prophylactic characteristics may fall under Chapter 30; on the material considered, Chapter 23 classification was not established prima facie. It also records that prior declarations, conflicting decisions, and a bona fide belief on classification meant suppression or mis-declaration was not prima facie shown, so the extended limitation period and penalty were not available prima facie. Limited pre-deposit was directed, with substantial waiver of duty and penalty pending final hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 May 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Jul 2011 12:26:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121325" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (5) TMI 103 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84181</link>
      <description>Products described as feed additives with anti-coccidial and growth-promoting properties were examined for classification under Chapter 23 or Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The text applies the principle that Chapter 23 is confined to animal-feeding preparations of the specified kind, while products with medicinal or prophylactic characteristics may fall under Chapter 30; on the material considered, Chapter 23 classification was not established prima facie. It also records that prior declarations, conflicting decisions, and a bona fide belief on classification meant suppression or mis-declaration was not prima facie shown, so the extended limitation period and penalty were not available prima facie. Limited pre-deposit was directed, with substantial waiver of duty and penalty pending final hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 May 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84181</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>