<?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>2008 (1) TMI 732 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123299</link>
    <description>Goods were classifiable as glues and adhesives other than those based on plastics because the assessee had disclosed the product composition, the approved classification list remained on record, and the later test report did not establish the percentage of synthetic needed to displace that classification. The higher rate could not be applied on the basis of incomplete material. The extended period of limitation and penalty also failed because there was no suppression or misstatement; the composition had been disclosed and the Department had no reliable basis to allege concealment. Differential duty and penalty were therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Sep 2012 15:22:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=160269" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (1) TMI 732 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123299</link>
      <description>Goods were classifiable as glues and adhesives other than those based on plastics because the assessee had disclosed the product composition, the approved classification list remained on record, and the later test report did not establish the percentage of synthetic needed to displace that classification. The higher rate could not be applied on the basis of incomplete material. The extended period of limitation and penalty also failed because there was no suppression or misstatement; the composition had been disclosed and the Department had no reliable basis to allege concealment. Differential duty and penalty were therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123299</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>