<?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 (4) TMI 957 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126616</link>
    <description>Synthetic Rubber Master Batch was treated as classifiable under the nil-rate heading for goods used within the factory of production, and the contrary duty demand was set aside. Colour Master Batch duty could not be sustained because the chemical test report was inconclusive and no further verification was undertaken, so the benefit of doubt went to the assessee. The extended period of limitation was held unavailable in the absence of suppression or wilful misstatement, and the connected penalties were also set aside. A later show cause notice was held time-barred because it was based on facts already within departmental knowledge. One classification issue was left for Larger Bench consideration, with only fresh computation of the surviving demand directed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Nov 2012 11:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163508" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (4) TMI 957 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126616</link>
      <description>Synthetic Rubber Master Batch was treated as classifiable under the nil-rate heading for goods used within the factory of production, and the contrary duty demand was set aside. Colour Master Batch duty could not be sustained because the chemical test report was inconclusive and no further verification was undertaken, so the benefit of doubt went to the assessee. The extended period of limitation was held unavailable in the absence of suppression or wilful misstatement, and the connected penalties were also set aside. A later show cause notice was held time-barred because it was based on facts already within departmental knowledge. One classification issue was left for Larger Bench consideration, with only fresh computation of the surviving demand directed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126616</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>