<?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>2013 (3) TMI 240 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221474</link>
    <description>Hexane products obtained by fractionation were held classifiable under Heading 2901 because the non-hexane constituents were permissible impurities arising from the manufacturing process, and the goods retained the essential character of hexane. The competing Heading 2710 entry for special boiling point spirits was rejected since there was no evidence of deliberate addition of components to make the goods suitable for a special use. On limitation and consequences, the complex classification dispute, supporting technical material, prior contrary tribunal views, and the bona fide claim meant the extended period, confiscation and penalties were not sustainable. The appeal succeeded and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:18:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=194827" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (3) TMI 240 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221474</link>
      <description>Hexane products obtained by fractionation were held classifiable under Heading 2901 because the non-hexane constituents were permissible impurities arising from the manufacturing process, and the goods retained the essential character of hexane. The competing Heading 2710 entry for special boiling point spirits was rejected since there was no evidence of deliberate addition of components to make the goods suitable for a special use. On limitation and consequences, the complex classification dispute, supporting technical material, prior contrary tribunal views, and the bona fide claim meant the extended period, confiscation and penalties were not sustainable. The appeal succeeded and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221474</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>