<?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>1997 (7) TMI 291 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87043</link>
    <description>Ice cream cones were held classifiable under Tariff Heading 1905.11 as biscuits, waffles and wafers, because the tariff did not define those terms and the HSN Notes, treated as an interpretive aid, expressly covered ice cream cornets or cones made from waffle dough. Trade opinions and departmental clarifications were not treated as controlling. On limitation, the extended period could not be invoked because the assessee had disclosed manufacture and the classification adopted; a disputed legal view on classification did not amount to suppression when the underlying facts were known to the department. The appeal therefore succeeded only on limitation and failed on classification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Sep 2011 14:15:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124110" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (7) TMI 291 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87043</link>
      <description>Ice cream cones were held classifiable under Tariff Heading 1905.11 as biscuits, waffles and wafers, because the tariff did not define those terms and the HSN Notes, treated as an interpretive aid, expressly covered ice cream cornets or cones made from waffle dough. Trade opinions and departmental clarifications were not treated as controlling. On limitation, the extended period could not be invoked because the assessee had disclosed manufacture and the classification adopted; a disputed legal view on classification did not amount to suppression when the underlying facts were known to the department. The appeal therefore succeeded only on limitation and failed on classification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87043</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>