<?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 (2) TMI 403 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94294</link>
    <description>Penicillin G. Amidase Biocatalyst manufactured from cultivated E. coli cells was treated as enzyme-like and most akin to an enzyme, so classification under Heading 35.07 prevailed over Heading 30.02 for cultures of micro-organisms. Technical literature, HSN notes, and the Chief Chemist&#039;s opinion supported that treatment, while the record did not establish the product as a culture of micro-organisms. On limitation, the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A was unavailable because the classification lists disclosed the product and had departmental approval, with no suppression, misstatement, or intent to evade shown. The first demand was therefore time-barred, while the remaining demands within the normal period remained sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:17:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131354" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (2) TMI 403 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94294</link>
      <description>Penicillin G. Amidase Biocatalyst manufactured from cultivated E. coli cells was treated as enzyme-like and most akin to an enzyme, so classification under Heading 35.07 prevailed over Heading 30.02 for cultures of micro-organisms. Technical literature, HSN notes, and the Chief Chemist&#039;s opinion supported that treatment, while the record did not establish the product as a culture of micro-organisms. On limitation, the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A was unavailable because the classification lists disclosed the product and had departmental approval, with no suppression, misstatement, or intent to evade shown. The first demand was therefore time-barred, while the remaining demands within the normal period remained sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94294</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>