<?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 (3) TMI 730 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98164</link>
    <description>Expert evidence on the manufacturing process and raw material showed that the capacitors were made from metalised polypropylene films of less than 12 micrones thickness, the material used for electronic capacitors. On that basis, the goods answered the description of electronic capacitors under Notification No. 211/84, and the exemption could not be denied merely on a contrary statement from one partner. The contrary classification finding was unsustainable because the expert report and unit inspection supported the appellant&#039;s claim. The duty demand and penalty therefore could not survive, and the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 15:04:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=135221" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (3) TMI 730 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98164</link>
      <description>Expert evidence on the manufacturing process and raw material showed that the capacitors were made from metalised polypropylene films of less than 12 micrones thickness, the material used for electronic capacitors. On that basis, the goods answered the description of electronic capacitors under Notification No. 211/84, and the exemption could not be denied merely on a contrary statement from one partner. The contrary classification finding was unsustainable because the expert report and unit inspection supported the appellant&#039;s claim. The duty demand and penalty therefore could not survive, and the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98164</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>