https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437007 The Tribunal ruled that the product 'Papad' (Tapioca) should be classified under CTH 19059040, as opposed to CTH 19030000, which was the classification used by the Revenue. This decision nullified the differential duty demand based on the incorrect classification. The invocation of the extended period of limitation was deemed irrelevant due to the favorable classification ruling. Additionally, the imposition of interest and penalties was dismissed, as the Revenue did not meet the burden of proof for their classification. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), allowing both appeals and annulling the imposed duties, interest, and penalties. en-us Thu, 13 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Nov 2023 12:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437007 The Tribunal ruled that the product 'Papad' (Tapioca) should be classified under CTH 19059040, as opposed to CTH 19030000, which was the classification used by the Revenue. This decision nullified the differential duty demand based on the incorrect classification. The invocation of the extended period of limitation was deemed irrelevant due to the favorable classification ruling. Additionally, the imposition of interest and penalties was dismissed, as the Revenue did not meet the burden of proof for their classification. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), allowing both appeals and annulling the imposed duties, interest, and penalties. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 13 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437007