https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84490 Goods cleared for latexing were held classifiable as felt under Heading 56.02 because Chapter Note 2 to Chapter 56 and the tariff description covered needle loom felt at the stage of removal, even though further processing was contemplated. Duty demand beyond six months was barred, as the process had been disclosed and removals were made under an approved Rule 56B procedure, defeating the extended limitation period. Valuation had to be based on the pre-latexed goods removed for processing, not the finished latexed product. Penalty was unsustainable because the facts showed disclosure and a bona fide understanding of the product's status. en-us Fri, 15 Oct 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Jul 2011 12:33:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84490 Goods cleared for latexing were held classifiable as felt under Heading 56.02 because Chapter Note 2 to Chapter 56 and the tariff description covered needle loom felt at the stage of removal, even though further processing was contemplated. Duty demand beyond six months was barred, as the process had been disclosed and removals were made under an approved Rule 56B procedure, defeating the extended limitation period. Valuation had to be based on the pre-latexed goods removed for processing, not the finished latexed product. Penalty was unsustainable because the facts showed disclosure and a bona fide understanding of the product's status. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 15 Oct 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84490