<?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>2018 (1) TMI 204 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353468</link>
    <description>Food preparations put up in unit containers for infant use were classified by their essential intended use, not by the fact that they were supplied through industrial consumers for further processing, so Chapter Heading 1901.11 applied and not 1901.19. The extended period of limitation was also not invokable because regular classification declarations had been filed, the department had queried and verified the classification, and the relevant facts were already within departmental knowledge; suppression was therefore not established. On that basis, the demand could not survive and the classification and limitation issues were decided in favour of the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2018 12:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=503189" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (1) TMI 204 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353468</link>
      <description>Food preparations put up in unit containers for infant use were classified by their essential intended use, not by the fact that they were supplied through industrial consumers for further processing, so Chapter Heading 1901.11 applied and not 1901.19. The extended period of limitation was also not invokable because regular classification declarations had been filed, the department had queried and verified the classification, and the relevant facts were already within departmental knowledge; suppression was therefore not established. On that basis, the demand could not survive and the classification and limitation issues were decided in favour of the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353468</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>