<?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 504 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108018</link>
    <description>The appellants imported goods initially classified under one heading of the Customs Tariff but were later reclassified without a show cause notice. The absence of evasion allegations and the fact that the goods were cleared based on the original classification led to the conclusion that the demand issued after the statutory period was time-barred. The Commissioner&#039;s decision was overturned, and the demand was deemed time-barred due to the lack of suppression of facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:01:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145035" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (9) TMI 504 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108018</link>
      <description>The appellants imported goods initially classified under one heading of the Customs Tariff but were later reclassified without a show cause notice. The absence of evasion allegations and the fact that the goods were cleared based on the original classification led to the conclusion that the demand issued after the statutory period was time-barred. The Commissioner&#039;s decision was overturned, and the demand was deemed time-barred due to the lack of suppression of facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108018</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>