<?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 (1) TMI 314 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94391</link>
    <description>Paper manufactured through extrusion coating was classified as laminated paper because its multilayer structure, trade understanding, technical materials, and the absence of a tariff definition supported that characterisation; it therefore fell within the exemption notifications then in force. The later separate exemption for coated paper reinforced that coated paper was treated differently only from a subsequent date. The duty demands were also time-barred because the assessee&#039;s declarations, licence applications, classification lists, and returns disclosed the process, and the record did not show suppression or wilful misdeclaration to justify the extended limitation period. The appeal succeeded and the impugned demand was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2011 11:34:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131451" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (1) TMI 314 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94391</link>
      <description>Paper manufactured through extrusion coating was classified as laminated paper because its multilayer structure, trade understanding, technical materials, and the absence of a tariff definition supported that characterisation; it therefore fell within the exemption notifications then in force. The later separate exemption for coated paper reinforced that coated paper was treated differently only from a subsequent date. The duty demands were also time-barred because the assessee&#039;s declarations, licence applications, classification lists, and returns disclosed the process, and the record did not show suppression or wilful misdeclaration to justify the extended limitation period. The appeal succeeded and the impugned demand was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94391</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>