<?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>2005 (2) TMI 604 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115086</link>
    <description>Kraft paper claiming exemption on the basis of bagasse-derived pulp content must have the qualifying percentage determined by reference to the pulp alone, after excluding moisture and additives, rather than by the gross weight of the finished paper. On that basis, denial of classification benefit under Heading 4804.11 and Notification No. 48/89-C.E. was unsustainable. Regular filing of approved classification lists and maintenance of prescribed records, including mixing and digester registers, did not support an allegation of suppression with intent to evade duty. The extended limitation period was therefore unavailable, and the demand was time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 May 2012 16:35:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152085" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (2) TMI 604 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115086</link>
      <description>Kraft paper claiming exemption on the basis of bagasse-derived pulp content must have the qualifying percentage determined by reference to the pulp alone, after excluding moisture and additives, rather than by the gross weight of the finished paper. On that basis, denial of classification benefit under Heading 4804.11 and Notification No. 48/89-C.E. was unsustainable. Regular filing of approved classification lists and maintenance of prescribed records, including mixing and digester registers, did not support an allegation of suppression with intent to evade duty. The extended limitation period was therefore unavailable, and the demand was time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115086</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>