<?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 (4) TMI 492 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358381</link>
    <description>Imported rutile/leucoxene sand remained ore, not concentrate, because wet concentration, attrition, secondary concentration and dry mill processing were ordinary physical or mechanical separation processes that did not alter the mineral&#039;s chemical composition. The HSN notes and Chapter Note 2 to Chapter 26 supported ore classification, while the IIT report did not displace the revenue&#039;s concerns and the Indian Bureau of Mines described the goods as naturally occurring rutile ore/leucoxene sand. The ore-based CVD exemption was therefore admissible and the demand failed on merits. The demand was also time-barred, as the department had prior knowledge and the dispute involved classification interpretation rather than suppression or wilful misstatement, so the extended period could not be invoked.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Mar 2019 14:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=516561" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (4) TMI 492 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358381</link>
      <description>Imported rutile/leucoxene sand remained ore, not concentrate, because wet concentration, attrition, secondary concentration and dry mill processing were ordinary physical or mechanical separation processes that did not alter the mineral&#039;s chemical composition. The HSN notes and Chapter Note 2 to Chapter 26 supported ore classification, while the IIT report did not displace the revenue&#039;s concerns and the Indian Bureau of Mines described the goods as naturally occurring rutile ore/leucoxene sand. The ore-based CVD exemption was therefore admissible and the demand failed on merits. The demand was also time-barred, as the department had prior knowledge and the dispute involved classification interpretation rather than suppression or wilful misstatement, so the extended period could not be invoked.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358381</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>