<?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 (6) TMI 248 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361421</link>
    <description>Ready mix dry mix product composed of graded sand, cement and additives was held classifiable under Heading 3214 as a non-refractory surfacing preparation, not under Headings 2505 or 2520, because its composition and use did not match those plaster entries. The demand based on the first show cause notice was confined to the normal limitation period since the manufacturing process had been disclosed to the department at registration, and extended limitation for suppression or misstatement was not available; recomputation was required for that limited period. Penalties under the Central Excise Act and Rules were not sustained because the dispute was interpretational rather than a case of deliberate evasion.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Apr 2019 15:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=522667" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (6) TMI 248 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361421</link>
      <description>Ready mix dry mix product composed of graded sand, cement and additives was held classifiable under Heading 3214 as a non-refractory surfacing preparation, not under Headings 2505 or 2520, because its composition and use did not match those plaster entries. The demand based on the first show cause notice was confined to the normal limitation period since the manufacturing process had been disclosed to the department at registration, and extended limitation for suppression or misstatement was not available; recomputation was required for that limited period. Penalties under the Central Excise Act and Rules were not sustained because the dispute was interpretational rather than a case of deliberate evasion.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361421</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>