<?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 (5) TMI 579 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124240</link>
    <description>Classification of naphtha distillates under Heading 2710.13 depends on proof that the product answers the tariff definition of motor spirit, including suitability for use as fuel in a spark ignition engine. The Department had not produced evidence establishing that suitability, and the order under challenge itself noted that absence of proof. A Government order under the Essential Commodities Act was treated as insufficient to satisfy the tariff test. On that basis, earlier Tribunal decisions supported a strong prima facie case for complete waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery, leaving the substantive classification dispute for final adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2012 10:48:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=161194" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (5) TMI 579 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124240</link>
      <description>Classification of naphtha distillates under Heading 2710.13 depends on proof that the product answers the tariff definition of motor spirit, including suitability for use as fuel in a spark ignition engine. The Department had not produced evidence establishing that suitability, and the order under challenge itself noted that absence of proof. A Government order under the Essential Commodities Act was treated as insufficient to satisfy the tariff test. On that basis, earlier Tribunal decisions supported a strong prima facie case for complete waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery, leaving the substantive classification dispute for final adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124240</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>