<?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>1998 (11) TMI 195 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89454</link>
    <description>Precipitated barium sulphate (blanc fixe) was treated as covered by the exemption notification for barytes and similar minerals used as extenders, fillers, suspending agents or diluents, because technical and documentary material showed both forms to be barium sulphate and used in the same industrial manner. The benefit was not denied merely because blanc fixe is precipitated rather than naturally occurring, absent evidence of a contrary legislative intent or commercial distinction. On limitation and penalty, the record did not establish suppression, misstatement, or deliberate misdeclaration; claiming exemption on product identity did not amount to an offence. The duty demand, confiscation, and penalty were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2011 11:45:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=126516" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (11) TMI 195 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89454</link>
      <description>Precipitated barium sulphate (blanc fixe) was treated as covered by the exemption notification for barytes and similar minerals used as extenders, fillers, suspending agents or diluents, because technical and documentary material showed both forms to be barium sulphate and used in the same industrial manner. The benefit was not denied merely because blanc fixe is precipitated rather than naturally occurring, absent evidence of a contrary legislative intent or commercial distinction. On limitation and penalty, the record did not establish suppression, misstatement, or deliberate misdeclaration; claiming exemption on product identity did not amount to an offence. The duty demand, confiscation, and penalty were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89454</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>