<?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>1996 (3) TMI 211 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85091</link>
    <description>HSN Explanatory Notes were treated as a safe guide for tariff classification, and modems were classified by their specific function as apparatus under Heading 85.17 rather than as automatic data processing units under Heading 84.71. Cartridge Tape Drive was treated as a separately housed accessory used principally with data processing machines and was classified under Heading 84.73 rather than Heading 84.71. On limitation, the technical nature of the dispute, approved classification lists, and absence of positive suppression or wilful misstatement meant the extended period could not be invoked, and penalty was not sustainable. The demand was therefore confined to the normal limitation period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2011 16:55:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122158" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (3) TMI 211 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85091</link>
      <description>HSN Explanatory Notes were treated as a safe guide for tariff classification, and modems were classified by their specific function as apparatus under Heading 85.17 rather than as automatic data processing units under Heading 84.71. Cartridge Tape Drive was treated as a separately housed accessory used principally with data processing machines and was classified under Heading 84.73 rather than Heading 84.71. On limitation, the technical nature of the dispute, approved classification lists, and absence of positive suppression or wilful misstatement meant the extended period could not be invoked, and penalty was not sustainable. The demand was therefore confined to the normal limitation period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85091</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>