https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90703 The appellants received polyamide chips under Chapter X at Nil rate of duty, manufactured monofilament yarn, and cleared it as 'nylon monofilament yarn' under Heading 54.04. The chemical examiner reclassified it as synthetic monofilament yarn under Heading 5406.19. The Collector's duty demand based on this reclassification was deemed unsustainable as Rule 9(2) did not apply due to the goods being removed with authorities' permission. The Supreme Court judgment cited by the appellants emphasized the need to prove deliberate mis-declaration for Rule 9(2) invocation, leading to the appeal's success with goods confiscation order set aside. en-us Thu, 28 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Oct 2011 18:26:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90703 The appellants received polyamide chips under Chapter X at Nil rate of duty, manufactured monofilament yarn, and cleared it as 'nylon monofilament yarn' under Heading 54.04. The chemical examiner reclassified it as synthetic monofilament yarn under Heading 5406.19. The Collector's duty demand based on this reclassification was deemed unsustainable as Rule 9(2) did not apply due to the goods being removed with authorities' permission. The Supreme Court judgment cited by the appellants emphasized the need to prove deliberate mis-declaration for Rule 9(2) invocation, leading to the appeal's success with goods confiscation order set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 28 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90703