<?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>2017 (4) TMI 684 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341714</link>
    <description>Tamarind Kernel Powder was analysed for tariff classification under Chapter sub-heading 1301.10 rather than 1101.00, with the Tribunal following its earlier decision in the same assessee&#039;s case and the HSN-based reasoning relied on there. The note also records that the duty demand was to be reworked by granting cum-duty benefit and by respecting the earlier view that the extended period of limitation was not maintainable, so fresh computation was required on remand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Apr 2017 08:02:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=465972" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (4) TMI 684 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341714</link>
      <description>Tamarind Kernel Powder was analysed for tariff classification under Chapter sub-heading 1301.10 rather than 1101.00, with the Tribunal following its earlier decision in the same assessee&#039;s case and the HSN-based reasoning relied on there. The note also records that the duty demand was to be reworked by granting cum-duty benefit and by respecting the earlier view that the extended period of limitation was not maintainable, so fresh computation was required on remand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341714</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>