<?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 (6) TMI 464 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97933</link>
    <description>Rich copper concentrate obtained from oxide ore through crushing, grinding, leaching and precipitation, without roasting, remained classifiable under Chapter Heading 26.03 because the process was only normal metallurgical preparation and did not alter the ore&#039;s basic chemical composition; Chapter Heading 74.01 for cement copper did not apply. The demand based on the show cause notice was also time-barred, as the record showed departmental awareness of the manufacture and clearances, disclosure by the assessee, and no proved suppression or intent to evade duty. On those facts, invocation of the extended limitation period was not sustainable and the classification and related duty consequences failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2012 15:59:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134990" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (6) TMI 464 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97933</link>
      <description>Rich copper concentrate obtained from oxide ore through crushing, grinding, leaching and precipitation, without roasting, remained classifiable under Chapter Heading 26.03 because the process was only normal metallurgical preparation and did not alter the ore&#039;s basic chemical composition; Chapter Heading 74.01 for cement copper did not apply. The demand based on the show cause notice was also time-barred, as the record showed departmental awareness of the manufacture and clearances, disclosure by the assessee, and no proved suppression or intent to evade duty. On those facts, invocation of the extended limitation period was not sustainable and the classification and related duty consequences failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97933</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>