<?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>2009 (8) TMI 876 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125581</link>
    <description>The Tribunal unconditionally allowed the stay petition, finding that the appellant&#039;s product, obtained by crushing marble and adding calcite powder during manufacturing, should be classified under Heading 2517 41 00, attracting a Nil rate of duty. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue&#039;s claim of a mixture of two different products, relying on the chemical examiner&#039;s report showing similar mineral percentages in the raw material and final product. Moreover, the demand was deemed barred by limitation, as the show cause notice was issued beyond the prescribed period, further supporting the decision to dispense with the pre-deposit of duty amount and penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Oct 2012 15:37:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=162494" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (8) TMI 876 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125581</link>
      <description>The Tribunal unconditionally allowed the stay petition, finding that the appellant&#039;s product, obtained by crushing marble and adding calcite powder during manufacturing, should be classified under Heading 2517 41 00, attracting a Nil rate of duty. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue&#039;s claim of a mixture of two different products, relying on the chemical examiner&#039;s report showing similar mineral percentages in the raw material and final product. Moreover, the demand was deemed barred by limitation, as the show cause notice was issued beyond the prescribed period, further supporting the decision to dispense with the pre-deposit of duty amount and penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125581</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>