<?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 (5) TMI 1281 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343543</link>
    <description>Two independent accredited laboratory reports found the imported rubber process oil non-hazardous, and the earlier CRCL-based report was treated as unreliable because its PAH testing methodology was not trustworthy. On that basis, the goods were not treated as restricted. For classification, heading 2710 was held inapplicable, heading 2707 was rejected as inconsistent with the product&#039;s nature, and the goods were accepted under heading 2713 9000 as petroleum residues or extracts. The extended period of limitation was also found unsustainable because the record showed prior clearances, no provisional assessment, and no proven suppression or intent to evade duty. Confiscation, duty demands, and penalties were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Feb 2018 15:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=470183" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (5) TMI 1281 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343543</link>
      <description>Two independent accredited laboratory reports found the imported rubber process oil non-hazardous, and the earlier CRCL-based report was treated as unreliable because its PAH testing methodology was not trustworthy. On that basis, the goods were not treated as restricted. For classification, heading 2710 was held inapplicable, heading 2707 was rejected as inconsistent with the product&#039;s nature, and the goods were accepted under heading 2713 9000 as petroleum residues or extracts. The extended period of limitation was also found unsustainable because the record showed prior clearances, no provisional assessment, and no proven suppression or intent to evade duty. Confiscation, duty demands, and penalties were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343543</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>