<?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>2003 (9) TMI 379 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107824</link>
    <description>Insulator pins were classified under the residuary tariff entry because classification depended on common and trade parlance, and the goods were not shown to be understood in the market as bolts, nuts or screws. Mere threading did not make them fall within the fastener entry when their function was to support an insulator and they remained a distinct component. The extended period for recovery of duty was not invocable because the assessee had filed a declaration showing classification under the residuary entry, which negated suppression of material facts; departmental correspondence also indicated that the goods were earlier understood to fall under that entry.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2012 11:07:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144841" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (9) TMI 379 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107824</link>
      <description>Insulator pins were classified under the residuary tariff entry because classification depended on common and trade parlance, and the goods were not shown to be understood in the market as bolts, nuts or screws. Mere threading did not make them fall within the fastener entry when their function was to support an insulator and they remained a distinct component. The extended period for recovery of duty was not invocable because the assessee had filed a declaration showing classification under the residuary entry, which negated suppression of material facts; departmental correspondence also indicated that the goods were earlier understood to fall under that entry.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107824</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>