<?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 651 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113165</link>
    <description>Goods consisting of LAB and Heavy Alkylate were treated as mixed alkylbenzenes classifiable under Heading 38.17 rather than Heading 27.10, because the manufacturing process, chemical analysis, statements of officials, and tariff notes showed that the products matched the specific entry for mixed alkylbenzenes and lacked the petroleum-oil character required for Heading 27.10. The document also states that deliberate change of nomenclature from Transformer Oil to Spindle Oil supported suppression and intent to evade duty, justifying invocation of the extended limitation period and sustaining the penalty framework, while the Rule 173Q penalty was only reduced in quantum.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 May 2012 11:17:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150181" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (9) TMI 651 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113165</link>
      <description>Goods consisting of LAB and Heavy Alkylate were treated as mixed alkylbenzenes classifiable under Heading 38.17 rather than Heading 27.10, because the manufacturing process, chemical analysis, statements of officials, and tariff notes showed that the products matched the specific entry for mixed alkylbenzenes and lacked the petroleum-oil character required for Heading 27.10. The document also states that deliberate change of nomenclature from Transformer Oil to Spindle Oil supported suppression and intent to evade duty, justifying invocation of the extended limitation period and sustaining the penalty framework, while the Rule 173Q penalty was only reduced in quantum.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113165</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>