<?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>2011 (4) TMI 976 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211058</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled that programmable controllers manufactured by the assessee were classifiable under Heading No. 90.32 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It set aside the Commissioner&#039;s classification under Heading No. 85.37, along with demands for differential duty, penalty, and confiscation orders. The Tribunal held that the extended period for demand was not applicable, making the demand time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Mar 2012 07:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=184485" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (4) TMI 976 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211058</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled that programmable controllers manufactured by the assessee were classifiable under Heading No. 90.32 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It set aside the Commissioner&#039;s classification under Heading No. 85.37, along with demands for differential duty, penalty, and confiscation orders. The Tribunal held that the extended period for demand was not applicable, making the demand time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211058</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>