<?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 (8) TMI 768 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100396</link>
    <description>Calcined Pyrophyllite was treated as prima facie outside Heading 25.05 from 26-5-1995 because Chapter Note 2 of Chapter 25 excludes calcined products, although the earlier classification position remained supportable for the prior period. The limitation plea for the later demand was regarded as arguable, but the surrounding correspondence and departmental awareness did not justify complete waiver. For pre-deposit, the authority noted possible cum-duty valuation relief and held the Section 11AC penalty prima facie untenable for the relevant period, while Rule 173Q penalty required final examination. Partial deposit was therefore directed and full waiver declined.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 13:07:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=137447" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (8) TMI 768 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100396</link>
      <description>Calcined Pyrophyllite was treated as prima facie outside Heading 25.05 from 26-5-1995 because Chapter Note 2 of Chapter 25 excludes calcined products, although the earlier classification position remained supportable for the prior period. The limitation plea for the later demand was regarded as arguable, but the surrounding correspondence and departmental awareness did not justify complete waiver. For pre-deposit, the authority noted possible cum-duty valuation relief and held the Section 11AC penalty prima facie untenable for the relevant period, while Rule 173Q penalty required final examination. Partial deposit was therefore directed and full waiver declined.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100396</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>