<?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>2004 (8) TMI 479 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112596</link>
    <description>Polyethylene glycol with more than five monomer units was held classifiable under sub-heading 3907.20 as a synthetic polymer under Chapter 39, because test reports and the manufacturing process supported polymer classification and not residual chemical products under sub-heading 3823.00. The extended period of limitation was unavailable because the classification list and declarations had disclosed the product and process, with no suppression of material facts; the demand was therefore confined to the normal six-month period and penalty was set aside. Confiscation of the seized goods was upheld, as no sufficient ground was shown to disturb that order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2012 17:27:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=149612" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (8) TMI 479 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112596</link>
      <description>Polyethylene glycol with more than five monomer units was held classifiable under sub-heading 3907.20 as a synthetic polymer under Chapter 39, because test reports and the manufacturing process supported polymer classification and not residual chemical products under sub-heading 3823.00. The extended period of limitation was unavailable because the classification list and declarations had disclosed the product and process, with no suppression of material facts; the demand was therefore confined to the normal six-month period and penalty was set aside. Confiscation of the seized goods was upheld, as no sufficient ground was shown to disturb that order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112596</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>