<?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 (10) TMI 278 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93325</link>
    <description>Goods supplied together were not classifiable as parts of filing cabinets under Tariff Heading 94.03 because the classification records disclosed their nature and intended use, and there was no evidence that the kraft folders and steel interlinking channels formed integral components of the cabinets. The approved classification was therefore preferred, and the assessee&#039;s classification was upheld. Full disclosure in the classification lists also negatived suppression or wilful misstatement, so the extended limitation period could not be invoked. On that basis, the duty demand for the relevant period failed and the assessee obtained consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2011 18:34:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130386" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (10) TMI 278 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93325</link>
      <description>Goods supplied together were not classifiable as parts of filing cabinets under Tariff Heading 94.03 because the classification records disclosed their nature and intended use, and there was no evidence that the kraft folders and steel interlinking channels formed integral components of the cabinets. The approved classification was therefore preferred, and the assessee&#039;s classification was upheld. Full disclosure in the classification lists also negatived suppression or wilful misstatement, so the extended limitation period could not be invoked. On that basis, the duty demand for the relevant period failed and the assessee obtained consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93325</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>