<?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 (9) TMI 604 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100415</link>
    <description>Approved classification lists and final RT-12 assessments weighed against invoking the extended limitation period on allegations of suppression and misdeclaration; without provisional assessment or proved intent to evade duty, mere non-filing of a separate classification list was insufficient, so limitation was not extended. On classification, the goods were treated as alloys other than ferro-alloys with iron content below the relevant threshold, and applying Note 3 to Section XV with Note 1(c) to Chapter 72, they were held outside Chapter 72 and classifiable under Chapter 81. The Revenue challenge therefore failed on both limitation and tariff classification, and the order dropping proceedings was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:02:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=137466" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (9) TMI 604 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100415</link>
      <description>Approved classification lists and final RT-12 assessments weighed against invoking the extended limitation period on allegations of suppression and misdeclaration; without provisional assessment or proved intent to evade duty, mere non-filing of a separate classification list was insufficient, so limitation was not extended. On classification, the goods were treated as alloys other than ferro-alloys with iron content below the relevant threshold, and applying Note 3 to Section XV with Note 1(c) to Chapter 72, they were held outside Chapter 72 and classifiable under Chapter 81. The Revenue challenge therefore failed on both limitation and tariff classification, and the order dropping proceedings was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100415</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>