<?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 (12) TMI 230 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90562</link>
    <description>Alpha Napthyl Acetic Acid was treated as a plant growth regulator because technical material and HSN notes showed it modifies plant physiology rather than killing or controlling pests; it was therefore classifiable under Tariff Item 68 for the pre-1986 period and under sub-heading 3808.90 thereafter, not as an insecticide or pesticide. As the exemption under Notification No. 234/82-C.E. covered only insecticides, pesticides, weedicides and fungicides, ANAA was not eligible for exemption. The extended limitation period was unavailable because the assessee had disclosed the product and the department had raised queries, so wilful suppression was not established; demand beyond the normal period was time-barred and penalty was reduced.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Oct 2011 10:31:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127624" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (12) TMI 230 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90562</link>
      <description>Alpha Napthyl Acetic Acid was treated as a plant growth regulator because technical material and HSN notes showed it modifies plant physiology rather than killing or controlling pests; it was therefore classifiable under Tariff Item 68 for the pre-1986 period and under sub-heading 3808.90 thereafter, not as an insecticide or pesticide. As the exemption under Notification No. 234/82-C.E. covered only insecticides, pesticides, weedicides and fungicides, ANAA was not eligible for exemption. The extended limitation period was unavailable because the assessee had disclosed the product and the department had raised queries, so wilful suppression was not established; demand beyond the normal period was time-barred and penalty was reduced.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90562</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>