<?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 (11) TMI 566 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125686</link>
    <description>A classification demand based on a new tariff heading could not be sustained where the Revenue departed from the classification proposed in the show cause notice after receipt of the chemical test report. The dispute had originally centred on classification between headings 3902/3904 and Chapter 59, but the later shift to sub-heading 3921.19 or 3926.90 introduced a fresh case outside the scope of notice. The proper course was to issue a fresh show cause notice before relying on the new classification. Because the assessee was not put on notice for that basis, the adjudication was vitiated to that extent and the objection that the Revenue travelled beyond the notice was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2012 11:45:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=162596" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (11) TMI 566 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125686</link>
      <description>A classification demand based on a new tariff heading could not be sustained where the Revenue departed from the classification proposed in the show cause notice after receipt of the chemical test report. The dispute had originally centred on classification between headings 3902/3904 and Chapter 59, but the later shift to sub-heading 3921.19 or 3926.90 introduced a fresh case outside the scope of notice. The proper course was to issue a fresh show cause notice before relying on the new classification. Because the assessee was not put on notice for that basis, the adjudication was vitiated to that extent and the objection that the Revenue travelled beyond the notice was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125686</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>