<?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>2015 (1) TMI 679 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255480</link>
    <description>The court ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that there was no deliberate intent to suppress facts or evade duty. Due to the confusion in the industry and the appellant&#039;s bona fide belief regarding the classification of &#039;food colour preparation,&#039; the adjudication was deemed time-barred. As a result, the penalties imposed on the appellant were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with no penalties levied. The judgment highlighted the necessity of intentional suppression for duty evasion cases.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Jan 2015 14:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=374136" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (1) TMI 679 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255480</link>
      <description>The court ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that there was no deliberate intent to suppress facts or evade duty. Due to the confusion in the industry and the appellant&#039;s bona fide belief regarding the classification of &#039;food colour preparation,&#039; the adjudication was deemed time-barred. As a result, the penalties imposed on the appellant were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with no penalties levied. The judgment highlighted the necessity of intentional suppression for duty evasion cases.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255480</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>