<?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 (3) TMI 1501 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357798</link>
    <description>Activated bentonite clay was classified under Chapter 25 up to 31.12.2006 because the tariff entry then expressly covered it, but from 01.01.2007 the omission of the word &quot;activated&quot; and the effect of Chapter 25 Note 1 shifted the product to Chapter 38, and that later-period classification was upheld. The demand was nevertheless barred by limitation because the goods had been cleared after Customs examination and the classification dispute was genuinely debatable, so no suppression or mala fide intent could be attributed and the extended period could not be invoked. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2018 08:18:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=515278" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (3) TMI 1501 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357798</link>
      <description>Activated bentonite clay was classified under Chapter 25 up to 31.12.2006 because the tariff entry then expressly covered it, but from 01.01.2007 the omission of the word &quot;activated&quot; and the effect of Chapter 25 Note 1 shifted the product to Chapter 38, and that later-period classification was upheld. The demand was nevertheless barred by limitation because the goods had been cleared after Customs examination and the classification dispute was genuinely debatable, so no suppression or mala fide intent could be attributed and the extended period could not be invoked. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357798</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>