<?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>1999 (8) TMI 466 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94240</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the product &#039;Super TT&#039; is not entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification No. 120/84-C.E. as it does not meet the definition of lubricating oil under the specific tariff heading. The demand of duty in one appeal was set aside as barred by limitation, while in another appeal, it was confirmed for the normal period. The penalty imposed was set aside considering the appellants&#039; good faith and approval of classification lists by the Department.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Nov 2011 11:08:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131300" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (8) TMI 466 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94240</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the product &#039;Super TT&#039; is not entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification No. 120/84-C.E. as it does not meet the definition of lubricating oil under the specific tariff heading. The demand of duty in one appeal was set aside as barred by limitation, while in another appeal, it was confirmed for the normal period. The penalty imposed was set aside considering the appellants&#039; good faith and approval of classification lists by the Department.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94240</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>