<?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>2000 (6) TMI 186 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93485</link>
    <description>A mere claim to a particular tariff classification does not amount to suppression or misdeclaration where the goods are fully and truthfully described in the classification list and annexure. On those facts, the Revenue cannot invoke the extended period of limitation, and the duty demand falls as time-barred. The demand and penalty did not survive because the limitation ground was decisive, while the correctness of the disputed classification was left open and not adjudicated.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2011 17:05:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130546" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (6) TMI 186 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93485</link>
      <description>A mere claim to a particular tariff classification does not amount to suppression or misdeclaration where the goods are fully and truthfully described in the classification list and annexure. On those facts, the Revenue cannot invoke the extended period of limitation, and the duty demand falls as time-barred. The demand and penalty did not survive because the limitation ground was decisive, while the correctness of the disputed classification was left open and not adjudicated.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93485</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>