<?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>2008 (10) TMI 179 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33799</link>
    <description>Aluminium casseroles with lids made for serving packaged food were held classifiable as table, kitchen or other household articles under Heading 76.15, because their primary function was serving food and HSN notes and related classification guidance supported treatment as tableware rather than containers under Heading 76.12. Open disclosure of the manufacturing process, filed classification declarations and prior departmental proceedings meant suppression or wilful misstatement was not established, so the extended period of limitation could not be invoked. As the demand failed on merits and the assessee acted on a bona fide classification view, penalty was also not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2026 14:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72427" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (10) TMI 179 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33799</link>
      <description>Aluminium casseroles with lids made for serving packaged food were held classifiable as table, kitchen or other household articles under Heading 76.15, because their primary function was serving food and HSN notes and related classification guidance supported treatment as tableware rather than containers under Heading 76.12. Open disclosure of the manufacturing process, filed classification declarations and prior departmental proceedings meant suppression or wilful misstatement was not established, so the extended period of limitation could not be invoked. As the demand failed on merits and the assessee acted on a bona fide classification view, penalty was also not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33799</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>