<?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 (11) TMI 753 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350874</link>
    <description>Lead grey oxide or lead sub-oxide emerging in the manufacture of lead acid batteries was examined for tariff classification under Chapter 28 or Chapter 38 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The product was treated as a distinct intermediate material and not the chemically defined inorganic lead oxide assumed in the impugned orders; no chemical test supported the original classification. Relying on earlier decisions on identical facts, it was held to fall under Chapter 38. As Chapter 38 goods were not covered by the negative list in Notification No. 50/2003-CE, the exemption denial and related duty demand failed, and the penalty under Rule 25 read with Section 11AC was also unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Nov 2017 08:48:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=496170" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (11) TMI 753 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350874</link>
      <description>Lead grey oxide or lead sub-oxide emerging in the manufacture of lead acid batteries was examined for tariff classification under Chapter 28 or Chapter 38 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The product was treated as a distinct intermediate material and not the chemically defined inorganic lead oxide assumed in the impugned orders; no chemical test supported the original classification. Relying on earlier decisions on identical facts, it was held to fall under Chapter 38. As Chapter 38 goods were not covered by the negative list in Notification No. 50/2003-CE, the exemption denial and related duty demand failed, and the penalty under Rule 25 read with Section 11AC was also unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350874</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>