<?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>2023 (6) TMI 453 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438879</link>
    <description>Re-processed plastic granules made from imported waste and scrap qualified for exemption under Notification No. 04/2006-C.E. because the controlling test was the true character of the input and its use in India, not merely the tariff heading shown in import documents; certificates and test reports supported that the goods were not prime-grade material and were used as waste and scrap, so the exemption applied and the duty demand failed on merits. The extended period of limitation was also unavailable because the exemption claim was disclosed in returns, the imports were on record, and the dispute was interpretational rather than clandestine; absent suppression of facts or mala fide intent, the demand was time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2024 13:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=716199" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (6) TMI 453 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438879</link>
      <description>Re-processed plastic granules made from imported waste and scrap qualified for exemption under Notification No. 04/2006-C.E. because the controlling test was the true character of the input and its use in India, not merely the tariff heading shown in import documents; certificates and test reports supported that the goods were not prime-grade material and were used as waste and scrap, so the exemption applied and the duty demand failed on merits. The extended period of limitation was also unavailable because the exemption claim was disclosed in returns, the imports were on record, and the dispute was interpretational rather than clandestine; absent suppression of facts or mala fide intent, the demand was time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438879</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>