<?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 (4) TMI 356 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96164</link>
    <description>Knife-like goods were found to fit Heading 8211.00, which covers knives with cutting blades, rather than Heading 8215.00 for spoons, forks, ladles and similar tableware. The fact that similar goods of another assessee had earlier been accepted under Heading 8215.00 did not override the correct tariff description for the goods in dispute. On limitation and penalty, bona fide belief on classification, together with departmental approval of RT-12 returns and similar treatment of goods in the collectorate, meant suppression or deliberate misstatement was not established. The extended period was therefore unavailable, and the penalty did not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 28 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Dec 2011 16:53:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133223" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (4) TMI 356 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96164</link>
      <description>Knife-like goods were found to fit Heading 8211.00, which covers knives with cutting blades, rather than Heading 8215.00 for spoons, forks, ladles and similar tableware. The fact that similar goods of another assessee had earlier been accepted under Heading 8215.00 did not override the correct tariff description for the goods in dispute. On limitation and penalty, bona fide belief on classification, together with departmental approval of RT-12 returns and similar treatment of goods in the collectorate, meant suppression or deliberate misstatement was not established. The extended period was therefore unavailable, and the penalty did not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 28 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96164</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>