<?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>2014 (4) TMI 421 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245984</link>
    <description>Tariff classification of a casino vessel turned on its intrinsic character and certification, not on occasional stationary use or the owner&#039;s commercial deployment of it. On that basis, the vessel was treated as a passenger ship under Heading 8901, not a pleasure or sport vessel under Heading 8903. The extended limitation period was not available because the bill of entry fully disclosed the vessel and the claimed exemption, with no proof of suppression or wilful misstatement. As the classification dispute was legal in nature and the foundation for penalty failed, the duty demand was time-barred and the penalties were unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Sep 2014 13:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=352028" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (4) TMI 421 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245984</link>
      <description>Tariff classification of a casino vessel turned on its intrinsic character and certification, not on occasional stationary use or the owner&#039;s commercial deployment of it. On that basis, the vessel was treated as a passenger ship under Heading 8901, not a pleasure or sport vessel under Heading 8903. The extended limitation period was not available because the bill of entry fully disclosed the vessel and the claimed exemption, with no proof of suppression or wilful misstatement. As the classification dispute was legal in nature and the foundation for penalty failed, the duty demand was time-barred and the penalties were unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245984</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>