<?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 (7) TMI 303 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85555</link>
    <description>Mill neps were treated as not constituting a separate textile material for exclusionary tariff language, because their commercial and technical character did not show the properties of textile fibres and HSN notes distinguished them from textile fibres and wadding. On that basis, yarn containing artificial staple fibre and polyester staple fibre remained classifiable under the declared tariff heading. On limitation, the assessee&#039;s records reflected use of mill neps and the department had inspected the premises and records, so suppression was not inferred and the extended period was not available. The demand was therefore time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Aug 2011 17:28:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122622" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (7) TMI 303 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85555</link>
      <description>Mill neps were treated as not constituting a separate textile material for exclusionary tariff language, because their commercial and technical character did not show the properties of textile fibres and HSN notes distinguished them from textile fibres and wadding. On that basis, yarn containing artificial staple fibre and polyester staple fibre remained classifiable under the declared tariff heading. On limitation, the assessee&#039;s records reflected use of mill neps and the department had inspected the premises and records, so suppression was not inferred and the extended period was not available. The demand was therefore time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85555</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>