<?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 (12) TMI 582 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125728</link>
    <description>The appeal was allowed as the Tribunal found that there was no deliberate intent to mislead in the classification of Glassine Poly paper under Chapter 39. The Revenue failed to justify the invocation of the extended period, and the appeal on limitation was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2012 16:10:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=162638" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (12) TMI 582 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125728</link>
      <description>The appeal was allowed as the Tribunal found that there was no deliberate intent to mislead in the classification of Glassine Poly paper under Chapter 39. The Revenue failed to justify the invocation of the extended period, and the appeal on limitation was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125728</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>