<?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 (12) TMI 110 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84675</link>
    <description>Classification under tariff entries for ethyl alcohol &quot;suitable for use as fuel&quot; depends on actual commercial fitness for the specified engine use, not a merely theoretical capability. Rectified spirit and similar products of about 90.2% to 95% strength were held not shown to be fit as fuel for internal combustion or spark-ignition engines, so the departmental classification failed. The demands were also held time-barred because the dispute was bona fide, departmental practice was inconsistent, and suppression or wilful misstatement was not established. Non-compliance with Chapter X procedure was treated as a procedural lapse that could not by itself defeat otherwise available exemption.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Dec 2015 09:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121742" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (12) TMI 110 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84675</link>
      <description>Classification under tariff entries for ethyl alcohol &quot;suitable for use as fuel&quot; depends on actual commercial fitness for the specified engine use, not a merely theoretical capability. Rectified spirit and similar products of about 90.2% to 95% strength were held not shown to be fit as fuel for internal combustion or spark-ignition engines, so the departmental classification failed. The demands were also held time-barred because the dispute was bona fide, departmental practice was inconsistent, and suppression or wilful misstatement was not established. Non-compliance with Chapter X procedure was treated as a procedural lapse that could not by itself defeat otherwise available exemption.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84675</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>