<?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>2002 (4) TMI 419 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102065</link>
    <description>Tyre cord fabric was held classifiable under Heading 59.09 rather than Heading 59.02 because the laboratory retest did not establish high tenacity yarn within the applicable technical standard, and the certificates relied on by the assessee were insufficient to displace that report. The exemption claim also failed, as the assessees did not prove that the whole production was made from high tenacity yarn and the burden of proof was not discharged. Limitation was not accepted because the true character of the goods had not been disclosed, justifying the extended period. Penalty was interfered with only to the extent of reduction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 16:04:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=139114" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (4) TMI 419 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102065</link>
      <description>Tyre cord fabric was held classifiable under Heading 59.09 rather than Heading 59.02 because the laboratory retest did not establish high tenacity yarn within the applicable technical standard, and the certificates relied on by the assessee were insufficient to displace that report. The exemption claim also failed, as the assessees did not prove that the whole production was made from high tenacity yarn and the burden of proof was not discharged. Limitation was not accepted because the true character of the goods had not been disclosed, justifying the extended period. Penalty was interfered with only to the extent of reduction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102065</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>