<?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 (9) TMI 1543 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295297</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the classification of resin rubber sheets for soles and heels under Heading No. 4008 21 10, exempt from duty, based on the goods being non-cellular rubber. The extended period for demand was not justified due to the respondent&#039;s compliance with filing returns. Lack of adherence to natural justice principles led to remand for de novo adjudication, where the Commissioner correctly dropped all demands. The failure to produce the testing officer for cross-examination weakened the department&#039;s case. The Tribunal dismissed the department&#039;s appeal and allowed the respondent&#039;s appeal, affirming the classification under 4008 21 10.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2021 17:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=645293" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (9) TMI 1543 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295297</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the classification of resin rubber sheets for soles and heels under Heading No. 4008 21 10, exempt from duty, based on the goods being non-cellular rubber. The extended period for demand was not justified due to the respondent&#039;s compliance with filing returns. Lack of adherence to natural justice principles led to remand for de novo adjudication, where the Commissioner correctly dropped all demands. The failure to produce the testing officer for cross-examination weakened the department&#039;s case. The Tribunal dismissed the department&#039;s appeal and allowed the respondent&#039;s appeal, affirming the classification under 4008 21 10.</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=295297</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>