<?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>2020 (3) TMI 908 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393764</link>
    <description>Micronutrient fertilizers were held classifiable under Chapter Heading 3105, not as plant growth regulators under Chapter Heading 3808, and the corresponding demand, interest and penalties were set aside. For bio-fertilizers and bio-pesticides of microbial origin, the earlier view was followed and classification under Chapter Heading 3002 attracted nil duty, so the related demands were also set aside. However, bio-fertilizers of plant and animal origin and bio-pesticides of plant or vegetable origin were re-classified and the duty demand on those products was sustained. Penalties were held unwarranted in view of the interpretative nature of the dispute, while interest was sustained as mandatory.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2020 09:41:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=607743" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (3) TMI 908 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393764</link>
      <description>Micronutrient fertilizers were held classifiable under Chapter Heading 3105, not as plant growth regulators under Chapter Heading 3808, and the corresponding demand, interest and penalties were set aside. For bio-fertilizers and bio-pesticides of microbial origin, the earlier view was followed and classification under Chapter Heading 3002 attracted nil duty, so the related demands were also set aside. However, bio-fertilizers of plant and animal origin and bio-pesticides of plant or vegetable origin were re-classified and the duty demand on those products was sustained. Penalties were held unwarranted in view of the interpretative nature of the dispute, while interest was sustained as mandatory.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393764</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>