<?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 (5) TMI 361 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93684</link>
    <description>Products made of active ingredients with carriers, intended for use in animal feeding and marketed as premixes, were treated as animal feed supplements under Heading 23.02 rather than veterinary medicaments under Chapter 30. The analysis followed the distinction that Chapter 29 covers separate chemically defined compounds, while Chapter 30 excludes food or feed supplements. Approved classification lists, repeated sample draws, and departmental awareness of composition and literature also meant no suppression or contumacious conduct was shown, so the extended limitation period was unavailable. The demand was therefore time-barred, and the penalties, interest, and confiscation could not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Nov 2011 11:45:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130744" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (5) TMI 361 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93684</link>
      <description>Products made of active ingredients with carriers, intended for use in animal feeding and marketed as premixes, were treated as animal feed supplements under Heading 23.02 rather than veterinary medicaments under Chapter 30. The analysis followed the distinction that Chapter 29 covers separate chemically defined compounds, while Chapter 30 excludes food or feed supplements. Approved classification lists, repeated sample draws, and departmental awareness of composition and literature also meant no suppression or contumacious conduct was shown, so the extended limitation period was unavailable. The demand was therefore time-barred, and the penalties, interest, and confiscation could not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93684</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>