https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220195 An exemption dispute concerning imported coal turned on whether the goods qualified as coking coal under the notification in force at the time of import. The technical material supported classification as coking coal because the coal was suitable for pulverized coal injection and metallurgical use, and the Revenue did not displace the assessee's evidence that it was used in steel manufacture without prior conversion into coke. Later explanatory amendments issued in 2011 were treated as only clarificatory technical criteria and could not be applied retrospectively to deny exemption for earlier imports. The chemical examiner's report was treated as an unsupported opinion, and the description discrepancy did not affect the core classification. The exemption was sustained and the Revenue's challenge failed. en-us Wed, 25 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Jan 2013 07:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220195 An exemption dispute concerning imported coal turned on whether the goods qualified as coking coal under the notification in force at the time of import. The technical material supported classification as coking coal because the coal was suitable for pulverized coal injection and metallurgical use, and the Revenue did not displace the assessee's evidence that it was used in steel manufacture without prior conversion into coke. Later explanatory amendments issued in 2011 were treated as only clarificatory technical criteria and could not be applied retrospectively to deny exemption for earlier imports. The chemical examiner's report was treated as an unsupported opinion, and the description discrepancy did not affect the core classification. The exemption was sustained and the Revenue's challenge failed. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 25 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220195