<?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 (12) TMI 318 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335673</link>
    <description>Imported bleaching earth was held to remain classifiable under Chapter Heading 2508.20 because the department failed to produce cogent evidence, including test analysis, to show that it was an activated natural mineral product warranting Chapter Heading 3802.90. The Tribunal also accepted that the goods were declared as bleaching earth, similar goods had been classified under the declared heading, and misdeclaration or suppression was not established. It further noted delay and procedural unfairness, including non-supply of relevant test material before decision. On these findings, reclassification was not justified, the consequential demand and penalty could not be sustained, and the Revenue appeal was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Aug 2017 14:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=450807" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 318 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335673</link>
      <description>Imported bleaching earth was held to remain classifiable under Chapter Heading 2508.20 because the department failed to produce cogent evidence, including test analysis, to show that it was an activated natural mineral product warranting Chapter Heading 3802.90. The Tribunal also accepted that the goods were declared as bleaching earth, similar goods had been classified under the declared heading, and misdeclaration or suppression was not established. It further noted delay and procedural unfairness, including non-supply of relevant test material before decision. On these findings, reclassification was not justified, the consequential demand and penalty could not be sustained, and the Revenue appeal was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335673</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>