<?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 (5) TMI 216 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91172</link>
    <description>Textile fabric coated with starch, gummy matter and inorganic siliceous material used for book-binding was treated as classifiable under Chapter 59 because an earlier Tribunal ruling in Bhor Industries, affirmed by the Supreme Court, governed the identical classification dispute. The appellants&#039; reliance on an earlier decision on heavily sized cotton fabrics did not displace that binding authority. On penalty, the Federation&#039;s penalty was reduced as excessive in relation to the duty demand, while the personal penalty on the Chairman was set aside because no material linked him individually to the mis-declaration required for Rule 209A liability. The limitation plea was also rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 May 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:24:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=128234" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (5) TMI 216 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91172</link>
      <description>Textile fabric coated with starch, gummy matter and inorganic siliceous material used for book-binding was treated as classifiable under Chapter 59 because an earlier Tribunal ruling in Bhor Industries, affirmed by the Supreme Court, governed the identical classification dispute. The appellants&#039; reliance on an earlier decision on heavily sized cotton fabrics did not displace that binding authority. On penalty, the Federation&#039;s penalty was reduced as excessive in relation to the duty demand, while the personal penalty on the Chairman was set aside because no material linked him individually to the mis-declaration required for Rule 209A liability. The limitation plea was also rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 May 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91172</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>