https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366194 Classification of the product under CETH 3101 0099 carried a nil rate of duty, so the order's observation that differential duty would still arise under Notification No. 23/2003-CE was inconsistent with that classification. The rectification was therefore warranted and the offending portion of the order was deleted, leaving no duty liability for the disputed period. The miscellaneous applications for change of cause title and jurisdictional address were also allowed because the record showed a change in jurisdiction and the respondent's current address, requiring the cause title to be updated accordingly. en-us Tue, 29 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Aug 2018 15:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366194 Classification of the product under CETH 3101 0099 carried a nil rate of duty, so the order's observation that differential duty would still arise under Notification No. 23/2003-CE was inconsistent with that classification. The rectification was therefore warranted and the offending portion of the order was deleted, leaving no duty liability for the disputed period. The miscellaneous applications for change of cause title and jurisdictional address were also allowed because the record showed a change in jurisdiction and the respondent's current address, requiring the cause title to be updated accordingly. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 29 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366194