<?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>2022 (9) TMI 738 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427793</link>
    <description>Micronutrient formulations containing nitrogen, phosphorus or potassium were treated as classifiable under Chapter heading 3105 rather than as plant growth regulators under heading 3808, because micronutrients and plant growth regulators are distinct products and Chapter Note 6 to Chapter 31 supports heading 3105 where a fertilising element is an essential constituent. The attempt to sustain a different tariff heading without a notice proposing that classification was inconsistent with natural justice, and the demand based on the impugned classification failed. The dispute being a bona fide classification contest without fraud, suppression or wilful misstatement, the extended period of limitation and penalty were not available, and the demand, interest and penalty were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Jun 2023 12:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=690970" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (9) TMI 738 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427793</link>
      <description>Micronutrient formulations containing nitrogen, phosphorus or potassium were treated as classifiable under Chapter heading 3105 rather than as plant growth regulators under heading 3808, because micronutrients and plant growth regulators are distinct products and Chapter Note 6 to Chapter 31 supports heading 3105 where a fertilising element is an essential constituent. The attempt to sustain a different tariff heading without a notice proposing that classification was inconsistent with natural justice, and the demand based on the impugned classification failed. The dispute being a bona fide classification contest without fraud, suppression or wilful misstatement, the extended period of limitation and penalty were not available, and the demand, interest and penalty were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427793</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>