<?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>2019 (1) TMI 248 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373083</link>
    <description>Bilas Pan Sughandh was held classifiable as churna for pan under tariff heading 2106 90 70 because the product was prepared from ingredients such as amla, bel pulp, mulethi, spices, flavouring substances, saccharin sodium, sugar and menthol, and was sold in trade as pan flavour material; the specific tariff entry and trade parlance principle prevailed over the residual heading 2008 99 99. Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules was not sustained because the dispute was one of classification and the record did not show suppression, fraud or misdeclaration. The classification and duty demand were upheld, while penal consequences were deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Jun 2019 16:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=551419" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (1) TMI 248 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373083</link>
      <description>Bilas Pan Sughandh was held classifiable as churna for pan under tariff heading 2106 90 70 because the product was prepared from ingredients such as amla, bel pulp, mulethi, spices, flavouring substances, saccharin sodium, sugar and menthol, and was sold in trade as pan flavour material; the specific tariff entry and trade parlance principle prevailed over the residual heading 2008 99 99. Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules was not sustained because the dispute was one of classification and the record did not show suppression, fraud or misdeclaration. The classification and duty demand were upheld, while penal consequences were deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373083</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>