https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378501 In a tariff classification dispute, the Revenue failed to prove that the imported goods were vitrifiable enamels and glazes under CTH 32072010 because no chemical examination or technical testing was produced; the goods were therefore classified as glass frit under CTH 32074000. On limitation, the dispute was one of interpretation and classification, and suppression or mala fide intent was not established, so the extended period of demand could not be invoked. As the demand for the extended period was time-barred, the consequential penalties on the importer and director were also unsustainable, and the impugned orders were set aside. en-us Thu, 11 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Nov 2019 14:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378501 In a tariff classification dispute, the Revenue failed to prove that the imported goods were vitrifiable enamels and glazes under CTH 32072010 because no chemical examination or technical testing was produced; the goods were therefore classified as glass frit under CTH 32074000. On limitation, the dispute was one of interpretation and classification, and suppression or mala fide intent was not established, so the extended period of demand could not be invoked. As the demand for the extended period was time-barred, the consequential penalties on the importer and director were also unsustainable, and the impugned orders were set aside. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 11 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378501