<?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>2016 (10) TMI 733 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333713</link>
    <description>Reusable baby cotton nappies or diapers were held classifiable under the specific textile entry for babies&#039; garments and clothing accessories, as babies&#039; napkins are expressly covered there; they were not classifiable under the paper-based sanitary article heading or the knitted apparel heading. The product&#039;s predominantly cotton, reusable character supported classification under Chapter Heading 61.11, specifically Subheading 6111.20. On limitation, departmental correspondence showed awareness of the subject matter, so any duty demand could not be sustained beyond one year from the show-cause notice. The demand was therefore confined to the normal limitation period and remanded for fresh quantification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Jan 2018 14:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=445530" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (10) TMI 733 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333713</link>
      <description>Reusable baby cotton nappies or diapers were held classifiable under the specific textile entry for babies&#039; garments and clothing accessories, as babies&#039; napkins are expressly covered there; they were not classifiable under the paper-based sanitary article heading or the knitted apparel heading. The product&#039;s predominantly cotton, reusable character supported classification under Chapter Heading 61.11, specifically Subheading 6111.20. On limitation, departmental correspondence showed awareness of the subject matter, so any duty demand could not be sustained beyond one year from the show-cause notice. The demand was therefore confined to the normal limitation period and remanded for fresh quantification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333713</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>