<?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 (8) TMI 623 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124146</link>
    <description>Propylene was held classifiable under Chapter 29 of the Central Excise Tariff, rejecting the assessee&#039;s claim for Chapter 27. On limitation, prior intimation of manufacture, disclosure of the process, filing of classification declarations under Rule 173B, amendment of the registration certificate, and regular returns negatived suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. The extended period of limitation was therefore not available, the demand was held time-barred, and the consequential penalty failed. The classification finding remained adverse to the assessee, but the demand and penalty were annulled on limitation grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2012 10:33:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=161103" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (8) TMI 623 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124146</link>
      <description>Propylene was held classifiable under Chapter 29 of the Central Excise Tariff, rejecting the assessee&#039;s claim for Chapter 27. On limitation, prior intimation of manufacture, disclosure of the process, filing of classification declarations under Rule 173B, amendment of the registration certificate, and regular returns negatived suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. The extended period of limitation was therefore not available, the demand was held time-barred, and the consequential penalty failed. The classification finding remained adverse to the assessee, but the demand and penalty were annulled on limitation grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124146</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>