<?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>2001 (1) TMI 314 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95361</link>
    <description>The product was treated as classifiable under Tariff Heading 3101 as fertiliser, not under Tariff Heading 3808 as insecticide or plant growth regulator, because the assessee&#039;s own earlier classification was taken as decisive. As Tariff Heading 3101 carried nil duty, valuation did not arise and the basis for the demand collapsed. The resulting demand and penalty were therefore unsustainable and were set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Dec 2011 15:00:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132420" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (1) TMI 314 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95361</link>
      <description>The product was treated as classifiable under Tariff Heading 3101 as fertiliser, not under Tariff Heading 3808 as insecticide or plant growth regulator, because the assessee&#039;s own earlier classification was taken as decisive. As Tariff Heading 3101 carried nil duty, valuation did not arise and the basis for the demand collapsed. The resulting demand and penalty were therefore unsustainable and were set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95361</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>